# Sexism and humor "Just a joke"



## EccentricSiren (Sep 3, 2013)

I've heard people say that people are too sensitive nowadays and they should be able to joke about anything because it's just a joke. But I think a lot of times when someone is calling someone out on a sexist or racist joke, they're challenging them to think about what they're really saying and what it really means rather than just being some overly PC, overly sensitive kill-joy. I don't like humor that's at another person's expense, particularly if it's someone who's already been mistreated or is constantly subject to negative stereotypes. 
Of course it's a complicated issue. A joke that seems racist or sexist on the surface might actually be for the purpose of exposing how ridiculous those attitudes are. But if the joke is made for the purpose of keeping a certain group of people "in their place" or perpetuating negative ideas about them, it's no longer funny.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

*Do you believe humor can be classified as sexist/prejudice?

*Yes.

*If so, do you think such types of humor can have a negative effect?

*Yes.

*What sort of relationship do you think there is between outcomes and sexist humor?* 

It is a loose relationship. It can contribute to a sexist perspective.

*Do you think it's more that people who are likely to express sexist humor are sexist and thus more likely to behave in ways arguably sexist or do you think there's a causal effect in which people who are exposed to sexist humor are more likely to then behave in a sexist way.*

Depends on the individual. 

I don't think that a sexist person necessarily expresses sexist humour or that sexist humour necessarily makes a person sexist.

*Is it bi-directional so are correct? Is this effect insignificant or is it a valid issue to try and effect in the workplace and other places?* 

Read the room.

*What do you think is the overall effect of humor?* 

To make people laugh...?

*What do jokes reflect about a person really and regardless of what they reflect, what effect do they have regardless of intention?*

Feeds judgey people with ammo.

*Does belonging to the group one disparage change anything or is sexism sexism no matter where it comes from?*

Sexist jokes from men are probably viewed more negatively that sexist jokes from women. That is a loose generalization though.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

In reading through http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/96071/katiebro_1.pdf?sequence=1 found this
Page 122


> Similarly, researchers have found that Stephen Colbert’s right-wing pundit persona on Daily Show spin-off The Colbert Report, ostensibly meant to satirically undermine the Republican agenda, is interpreted in a manner consistent with viewer’s own political ideology (LaMarre, Landreville, & Beam, 2009).


http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf
ABSTRACT


> This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert’s political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert’s political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.


It seems to suggest this sort of trend towards humor in general, that one interprets things through their pre-existing schemas and thus ambiguous humor it subtle reinforces one's own belief.
So one could watch South Park's episode where Cartman thinks he's a redhead after bullying redheads and come away with a face value meaning that it's okay to disparage redheads or take it further and consider it as critical of this.
So it poses a kind of interesting outcome in which the humor seems to affirm one's prejudices while at the same time affirm one's opposition to prejudice. This is particularly the case when humor is presented in an ambiguous fashion and thus it's left up to the viewer to decide who they identify with and the meaning of what they witness.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

I'm not going to read all of the quotes in the OP because they only talk about sexism against women, when my personal experience is that at some workplaces there is just as much or even more sexism against men. 
However, I do think sexist jokes and "banter" are a massive problem. They create a hostile atmosphere, because people are treated as "a stereotypical member of a group" instead of as an "individual". E.g. there might be lots of individual women who are good at repairing things, parking their car etc. but that reality gets ignored completely in favour of a joke that is based on an assumption that they can't do these things. There might be lots of men who can cook, but they still have to listen to comments about how men can't be trusted to do anything in the house etc. 
Basically, that boils down to "I am not interested in whatever you are like as an individual, because I know better. You are just a typical XYZ and you have no right to be heard."
Most sexist jokes aren't even that funny to an intelligent person because they are not very creative. Basically there is a well known stock of sexist jokes and they just get repeated over and over again.


----------



## Donkey D Kong (Feb 14, 2011)

It depends on where the joke is coming from and what the goal is with the joke being told. I love this clip because of what Patrice O'neal is saying in this one.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Donkey D Kong said:


> It depends on where the joke is coming from and what the goal is with the joke being told. I love this clip because of what Patrice O'neal is saying in this one.


+1 for Patrice. I wish he got his fat ass to the gym before it was too late. He had so many gems on O&A. He was the only reason I listened to them.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Sounds like you are asking another version of "does life imitate art, or does art imitate life."

The answer is that it just depends. The intent of the joke teller is what we are trying to discern.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

https://theconversation.com/its-just-a-joke-the-subtle-effects-of-offensive-language-62440


> *Why are these comments even made?*
> 
> Given so many people loudly object to offensive language, why do people persist in speaking this way?
> 
> ...


Upon reading this it made me think to a paper I recently read that argues that the common usage of the word misogyny is apolitical, naive and without much utility as it can only amount to a no true scotman debaccle and instead argues for a clearer definition and it's implications and utility.
http://www.katemanne.net/uploads/7/3/8/4/73843037/what_is_misogyny_a_feminist_analysis__2_.pdf


> Hence, I suggest that:
> Sexism is the species of patriarchal ideology which functions to theoretically justify patriarchal social relations by, e.g., naturalizing and idealizing women‘s subordination and men‘s dominance.
> 
> Whereas:
> Misogyny is the system within a patriarchal order which functions to practically enforce patriarchal social relations by, e.g., directly enacting, as well as policing and upholding women‘s subordination and men‘s dominance.


And in line with the above article discusses that misogyny may most likely be employed when the gender ordered presumed by sexism is undermined by a confrontation with the reality in which women aren't biologically incapable of fulfilling and pursuing things outside of gender roles. This poses an issue for those that have internalized such beliefs and for men in particular it may threatens their status and sense of how women are to behave in general and towards them ie for them.


* *






> In light of the foregoing, we can now ask: what would we naturally expect misogyny to be? That is, what would be a natural basis for hostility and animosity directed towards women at least partly, although not necessarily purely, because of their gender, and which makes sense of misogyny as an outgrowth or manifestation of patriarchal ideology? In view of women‘s typical social roles as men‘s attentive, loving subordinates within a patriarchal culture, I suggest there is now an obvious possibility to consider. A woman‘s perceived resistance to or violation of the norms and expectations which govern these social roles would naturally tend to provoke just these kinds of hostile reactions. What could be a more natural basis for hostility and animosity than defection from the role of an attentive, loving subordinate? This could be expected to leave some men, as the characteristic beneficiaries of patriarchal social relations, feeling both usurped and neglected. And, emotionally speaking, this combination could be disastrous.
> 
> It may be helpful to consider a schematic illustration. Imagine a person in a restaurant who expects not only to be treated deferentially — the customer always being right — but also to be served what he ordered, attentively, and with a smile. He expects to be made to feel cared for, and special, as well as brought his dinner. (A somewhat vulnerable position to be in, as well as a powerful one, in different senses. On the one hand, he is hungry and dependent on his server‘s cooperation; on the other hand, he is the one who is paying — and tipping.) Imagine now that this customer comes to be disappointed. His server is not serving him, although she is waiting on other tables. Or perhaps she appears to be lounging around lazily, or doing her own thing, inexplicably ignoring him. Still worse, she might appear to be expecting service from him, in a baffling role reversal. Either way, she is not behaving in the manner to which he has grown accustomed. It is easy to imagine this person becoming confused, then resentful. It is easy to imagine him banging his spoon on the table. It is easy to imagine him exploding in frustration.
> 
> ...





> We now have an idea of what we might naturally expect misogyny to look like in one important form, and as a duly hostile and noxious manifestation of patriarchal ideology. On this view, misogyny need not, and typically will not, involve hostility directed towards women universally, nor even very generally. It will tend to comprise hostility directed towards members of a specific historically and to some extent currently subordinate social class who are perceived as insubordinate, negligent, or threatening. Misogyny‘s central targets would hence include women entering into positions of power and authority over men, and women exiting or resisting positions of male-oriented service. Among others then, its natural targets will be (surprise) feminists.





> Construed in terms of the interpersonal reactions women face, as well as their characteristic manifestations in expressions and actions, a misogynist social environment need not be the product of individual agents‘ bigotry. It will instead often result from one or more of a variety of complex, interacting social mechanisms, which depend on and in turn shape individual agents‘ actions, without being easily reducible to or well-explained in terms of them. For example, misogyny may be partly the result of some people‘s inchoate discomfort and insecurity when more or less any well-entrenched system of social norms is being dismantled. Women who resist or flout gendered norms and expectations may subsequently attract suspicion and consternation, which has less to do with their challenging gendered norms per se, and more to do with their challenging entrenched norms simpliciter. And for some people, feminism in particular has profoundly disrupted their sense of the social order. The hostility they display to women who disrupt or pose a threat to gendered social hierarchies, say, is compatible with their being egalitarians in the abstract. They may nevertheless perceive powerful women who do not wield their power in service of men‘s interests as insubordinate and threatening. For that reason among others, a misogynist social environment may be partly the result of more or less well-intentioned people acting out of disavowed emotions, or exhibiting flashes of aggression which are not consciously experienced. And indeed, such aggression may be acted out partly as a substitute for feeling it; the ideas of ―acting‖ and ―freaking out‖ are pointful in this context.





> There is no reason to assume that misogyny will be taught, contra Chris Ferguson. For, it does not need to be. By the lights of my analysis, misogyny rather involves more or less run-of-the-mill reactions to agents‘ feeling threatened, cornered, thwarted, put down, let down, dressed down, wounded, defeated, bested, corrected, surpassed, usurped, displaced, disappointed, humiliated, chastened, undermined, or ousted by someone. What gets taught to — or, better, internalized by — individual agents are rather the various patriarchal norms and expectations which govern women‘s social roles in service of men‘s interests, together with a potent sense of personal entitlement. Hence, when a woman is perceived as challenging, resisting, or violating these norms and expectations, she and other women are liable to be shut down, shut up, and shot down — usually metaphorically, but sometimes, literally.





So humor can quite often be the form of misogyny commonly employed that seems relatively minor to more extreme cases but is part of the coercive social elements for women to be kept in line, to inhibit other women from pursuing such behaviours because they will endure social consequences.
Misogyny is to be employed for when the softer elements that depict gendered behaviours as ideal and romanticized don't persuade one enough to internalize such views and values. This could be the general model for understanding social enforcement where many things are employed as normative and deviations have to be kept in line through different degrees of coercion and at the most extreme expression they come out in brutal violence but this isn;t ideal as whats ideal si that those that break rules simply stay in line with the social order.

Quite often the framing of jokes is also typical to many circumstances in which one is criticized, to debate the intent of the individual and often presuming the most benign or benevolent of intentions as a defense of their actions with neglect to the impact of one's actions and whether they are to be considered defended on their own merit regardless of intent. particularly as a person who has no ill will would be more prone to simply apologize and want to move on.


----------



## Aridela (Mar 14, 2015)

sink said:


> For the most part people have become too easily offended on principal. A prime example for this would be tumblr "feminists". As for the humor, nobody has the same taste in it. I don't think sexist jokes equate sexism just as I don't see racist jokes equate racism and so on. I sometimes enjoy dark humor for a laugh or two, but that doesn't mean I'm some psychopathic murderer.
> 
> Although I do differentiate a mean-spirited "joke" from an actual joke. You can catch those pretty easily though, they're usually very clearly directed at somebody and are accompanied by a condescending smile or whatnot.


Does a racist joke equate racism?


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

You just have to laugh at certain things.



> Cuckfield (/ˈkʊkfiːld/ kuuk-feeld) is a large village and civil parish in the Mid Sussex District of West Sussex, England, on the southern slopes of the Weald. It lies 34 miles (55 km) south of London, 13 miles (21 km) north of Brighton, and 31 miles (50 km) east northeast of the county town of Chichester. Nearby towns include Haywards Heath to the southeast and Burgess Hill to the south. It is surrounded on the other sides by the parish of Ansty and Staplefield formerly known as Cuckfield Rural.
> 
> Before the modern local government system came into operation in the late 19th century it was described as being in the hundred of Buttinghill, in the rape of Lewes. The civil parish covers an area of 431.58 ha (1066 acres), and had a population of 3,266 persons in the 2001 census.


In this wikipedia page, the word 'rape' was hyperlinked. I investigated it curiously, wondering how a town could be located in a place called "the rape of Lewes".



> A rape is a traditional territorial sub-division of the county of Sussex in England, formerly used for various administrative purposes. Their origin is unknown, but they appear to predate the Norman Conquest.[2] *Historically the Rapes formed the basis of local government in Sussex.*
> 
> The Sussex rapes each had a headquarters in the developed south where the lord's hall, court, demesne lands, principal church and peasant holdings were located,[3] whereas to the north there were smaller dependent settlements in the marsh, woodland and heath.[3] *Each rape was split into several hundreds.*


Lol'd at the bold bits.

Perhaps I have an immature and inappropriate sense of humour, but I'm not apologising for the fact that it makes me laugh that there is a place called Cuckfield and it happens to be in a 'rape'.


----------



## marbleous (Feb 21, 2014)

It's okay as long as the person makes their true intentions towards the gender very clear. Otherwise, it's an excuse to justify insulting them.

An example, I was in the lounge with students doing homework. One student is telling a story which he says will be hilarious. The story is of how he described to his friend (female) a rape scene and asked what if it happened to her. He assured us confused listeners that it was the context that made it funny.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

marbleous said:


> It's okay as long as the person makes their true intentions towards the gender very clear. Otherwise, it's an excuse to justify insulting them.
> 
> An example, I was in the lounge with students doing homework. One student is telling a story which he says will be hilarious. The story is of how he described to his friend (female) a rape scene and asked what if it happened to her. He assured us confused listeners that it was the context that made it funny.


I think beyond context, relationship is important.
Friends insulting one another, calling one another bastards or girls who sometimes jokingly call one another bitch or slut can say it with no offense because there's already an understanding from their relationship that they respect and care about one another.
Devoid of such a relationship, same words can be readily taken as an insult and so a degree of intimacy can possibly mitigate the effect because it's bonding between people rather than necessarily against a demographic.
And I think this is what Zizek is touching on in an early post I made in this thread.


----------



## marbleous (Feb 21, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> I think beyond context, relationship is important.
> Friends insulting one another, calling one another bastards or girls who sometimes jokingly call one another bitch or slut can say it with no offense because there's already an understanding from their relationship that they respect and care about one another.
> Devoid of such a relationship, same words can be readily taken as an insult and so a degree of intimacy can possibly mitigate the effect because it's bonding between people rather than necessarily against a demographic.
> And I think this is what Zizek is touching on in an early post I made in this thread.


Yes, I agree. It all comes down to clarity of intentions doesn't it.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Wellsy said:


> Do you believe humor can be classified as sexist/prejudice?


No. An ESTP summed this up really well: "Enough of your life story, let the man joke around." If you get offended or personally attached to humor then you are approaching it wrong. A shitty joke will always be a shitty joke no matter how "sexist" or "prejudiced" it is so there is no point in making those distinctions.


----------



## Zelz (Dec 29, 2014)

As for the paradigm, the relationship is a bit weak.

Not all humor are sexist and prejudice. People just say dumb shit sometimes. 

At work, the Code of Conduct policy protects employees from certain behavior, including racist jokes. It is possible to lose your job for that. 

Outside of work, racist without assault cannot be persecuted. Look at Trump.

BTW, this reminds me of hw.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

ursi said:


> Outside of work, you can't really be in jail for being a racist without assault. Look at Trump.


Just a side note: if you want to get technical then find one quote (full context) from trump thats racist


----------



## Zelz (Dec 29, 2014)

Skeletalz said:


> Just a side note: if you want to get technical then find one quote (full context) from trump thats racist


Here's a link. Enjoy!

This is really feeling like hw. :tongue:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrum...a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is/


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

I think one of the biggest theme for jokes involving women is the perpetuation of the myth that women cannot be logical and rational. This is something that is promoted a LOOOOT by US conservative commentators, as well as Donald Trump who are always making period jokes or "Oh when she's on pms, she'll push the nuke button". I think the damaging aspect of jokes like that is that it creates an environment in which female leaders are not taken seriously.

My belief on the wage gap is that it's not an institutional issue, but a societal one. In other words, more often than not, companies will _start_ people of both genders at equal pay, but if a man were to get leverage with another job offer and demand a raise and/or promotion he's being "assertive", but if a woman does it sometimes, she's perceived as being "emotional" or "overly demanding or bossy" or as "bitch". Also, when a female enters a leadership position, more often than not, her leadership is not taken seriously. It's like you always have to walk a fine line between being walked all over, and being seen as a total bitch.

My personal experience, is it took me forever to get into learning how to program, even web development, because I had a mental block for years. I was afraid I had to everything PERFECTLY. That I had to be better than the men and learn faster, in order to be taken the slightest bit seriously. I'm thinking there's a possibility that this is a crisis that faces many women interested in any kind of logic based field. I had an epiphany when I worked at autozone, however. At autozone, every employee is expected to do little jobs like change batteries, and lights and wipers, and yes, some women had totally sexist views. However, I've noticed that the rest of the women, seeing me do it, made them more interesting in learning how to do these things themselves. It's almost like they hadn't considered this as something they could learn, before. I realized this could be true of young women in a lot of logic fields. While some women are naturally pioneers, like, say, Sally Ride, I believe other women need to see a female face or hear a female voice in a field before they really consider it something they could pursue and enjoy or be good at it.

So...here's a couple of memes that mayyy perpetuate the idea that women are not logical....



























on the other hand, here are some memes that I believe are sadly true of "feminists". To most "feminists" today, equality really means female privilege. So can you constitute jokes like this as "sexist"? I know I don't think lot a lot of these people...










The only thin that I can say that would be constituted as sexist about this is that it labels this as "woman logic" when it's more accurately "radical feminist logic".

Also let's talk about society's views on women and math. I let this affect me a lot too. I almost flunked trigonometry, and always made C's despite the fact that I had a knack for logical tasks like proofing. It wasn't until later in life that I decided to retackle algebra and more advanced maths, and even tutored a couple of people in it, and I realized, my natural ability toward pattern seeking has always been extremely conducive toward innate mathematical ability. I just didn't give myself a chance. 

Here are some memes that represent society's views of women and math:

















I like this one! I guess it's the mathematical equivalent of "hack a hairdryer"

I believe jokes are a symptom of an underlying belief system that gets perpetuated from generation to generation-- I believe many sexist views toward women are rooted in a past of male oppression, a reflection of the few women who are poor representations of their gender or propagated by people who believe that violence against women is an acceptable thing to joke about...

Now lets pick on the men, because there is also a lot of media, including jokes, that reflect a sexist view toward men. Mainstream society influences males to put on a facade of toughness and stoicy that is potentially damaging to both genders. The majority of violent crimes as well as suicides are committed by _men_. 

the overly manly man...




























The overly manly man, is, of course, an exercise in hyperbole. An extreme exaggeration of what is considered "acceptable male behavior.", but I believe exaggeration is the best place to isolate traits associated with a group, and the traits I see in memes like this, and jokes like that are, concepts like violent and self destructive behaviors like alcoholism. 

I definitely, believe sexism goes in both directions in society. In reality, men and women are not that different. I think that society pushes the little bit about each gender that is different and exaggerates it to a point that is warped and unnatural, and humor, is a reflection of this warped view of gender. Is such humor acceptable? It seems like there's a fine line in that regard. In the end, people need to learn that each person is a nuanced individual and not a slave to their sex hormones. Trust me, if you saw me in a professional setting, on pms or on my period, 9 times out of 10 you probably wouldn't even have known it, because-- newsflash! I'm a mature individual and not a slave to the ebbs and flows of her secondary sex hormones.

Just one last thing.....sexist humor is probably not going anywhere anytime soon. I believe the best recourse, is not to get all offended and make this big fuss about it, but to prove the jokes wrong, but the way we live our lives, because the more we prove them wrong, the less people will get the jokes.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Wellsy said:


> Do you believe humor can be classified as sexist/prejudice?


yes, it depends on purpose. sometimes people just say things to be shocking and offensive or to make fun of a stereotype. other times, people use humor either as 
a) a passive-aggressive jab at someone
b) a softer means of controlling people. this tactic is often used in tandem with some amount of aggression. for example, I watched a documentary on pimps a few years back....and all of them were fucking hilarious. they used this combination of humor, charisma and aggression to control the prostitutes. women are often culprits as well, and use a kind of sarcastic humor to soften their controlling bitch side.


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

I dont think sexist jokes are a good indicator of someone being sexist or not


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Something I find curious is the asserted irony of somethings which are in practice indistinguishable from sexism if considered as authentic. The reflexivity of being aware of what one is doing doesn't in itself negate the act and as such lots of humour which can be sexist in content but framed as unproblematic by an ironic detachment/distance. B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_sexism
ut the distance between what is seen as but an act as different from the authentic behaviour and beliefs of someone is made blurry when the distinction between the persona and the person themselves is difficult to distinguish.
We would question the gap between a character and the actor themselves should the actor seem to personally enjoy the morally dubious or repugnant views and acts of the character, then the difference between persona and the person themselves seems to blur into one rather than a distinct two.
Which is also why its easier to dismiss or doubt the sexism of someone who has the credibility of not being sexist in the first place.


----------



## JpKoff (Oct 30, 2017)

A fair share of humor is based on clichés, archetypes, generalizations and comparisons. Exaggeration is at the root of hilarity.
So it makes sense that gender difference is a funny topic to joke about.
Laughing about our differences allow us to accept each other more easily.

On the other hand there are jokes like this one:
Q: What do you say to a woman with both black eyes ?
A: Nothing, she's been told twice already!

Jokes like these are funny in our current times, centuries ago they were merely rules of life  
I'm trolling but I think that's what you were getting at, can jokes perpetuate violence and domination? Really, I don't think so. 

Watching random people fall down awkwardly and get hurt is funny, but if it's your own grandma, it's a different thing.
A joke, on the other hand, is harmless in the sense that it's fictitious. Not actual people, only stories about characters. 
I have no statistics to back it up but I can easily say that jokes about putting babies in a freezer have not increased the proportion of congealed infants lawsuits...

A woman goes to the doctor.
W: Doctor, my thigh hurts, I think it's a tear.
Dr: No ma'm, this is not a tear, it's a mere strain.
W: But Doctor, I disagree, this hurts so much I'm sure it's a tear
Dr: Trust my 10 years of study and my 20 years of practice, this is not a tear
W: Really I'd like you to examine it further, I'm sure it's a tear. Else I'll ask for another opinion.
The doctor is kinda incensed that she doubts his judgment. So he tells her
Dr: Okay, there you go. Remove your pants and your underwear.
W: my underwear? why that?
Dr: You can go see another doctor if you don't trust me
W: Well, okay, I'll do it
Dr: Fine, now turn around
The woman turns around. The doctor unzips his own pants, takes out his junk and fucks her in the ass, dry and raw while the woman screams and cries in agony.
Dr: SEE ??? NOW *THAT*'S A TEAR !!!!

Sorry, it sounds better in french


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Something that caught my attention is the significance of a concept in regards to offensive or problematic concepts/words.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Brandom.pdf


> A concept is a predicate of a possible judgment.
> 
> Brandom makes all this very clear with his explanation of bad concepts. These are concepts which we don’t use because their very utterance carries the inference that certain propositions follow from certain conditions, and if we don’t agree with this inference we simply must not use the word. The clearest examples are terms reflective of racial prejudice such as ‘******’, which applies to Afro-Americans and carries the inference that it is a contemptible person. Such a term simply cannot be uttered. Another example Brandom gives is the concept of ‘blasphemy’, of which the accused Oscar Wilde said “is not one of my words.” These ‘bad concepts’ demonstrate that concepts have real content, specifically that concepts embody both the state of affairs they describe and the meaning or significance which could be ascribed to that state of affairs
> 
> Given that concepts have real content in this sense, we can see that the use of concepts commits any person who uses a concept to the work of integrating concepts into a single whole, which is a person’s world view; a person must answer for what flows from the concepts they use. When a rational person is presented with a new concept, its ramifications and its interaction with all the other concepts must be worked through. Incompatible concepts cannot be carried side by side with each other. Thus Brandom gives us an approach to understanding the development of the rational person. The same observations apply to the development of a science. “What makes it a unified whole is the rational relation among its parts” (2009: 52). Note that there is no implication here of any kind of ‘master principle’. According to Brandom’s pragmatism, the unified whole is only the outcome of the integrative work of a rational person.


----------



## Ksiaze (Jul 21, 2019)

I love offensive humor, what's the point of a joke if nobody will get hurt.

The thing is, i enjoy reality, jokes based on reality, on truth. 

I like bill burr on that. Classic one and yet so truthful, women, there are hundreds of reasons as to why a guy would want to hit you for. 

So sexism for men and women can be turned into a joke real quick, the thing is, all the sexism jokes are created by men because women are not as funny.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

sink said:


> For the most part people have become too easily offended on principal. A prime example for this would be tumblr "feminists". As for the humor, nobody has the same taste in it. I don't think sexist jokes equate sexism just as I don't see racist jokes equate racism and so on. I sometimes enjoy dark humor for a laugh or two, but that doesn't mean I'm some psychopathic murderer.
> 
> Although I do differentiate a mean-spirited "joke" from an actual joke. You can catch those pretty easily though, they're usually very clearly directed at somebody and are accompanied by a condescending smile or whatnot.


Yeah, I think it depends what is defined as "sexist humor". Often the reason something is funny is because it goes somewhere unexpected, or somewhere that in most situations wouldn't be funny at all. 






So sometimes a joke that is ostensibly sexist, racist etc. is more a way to point out the problem in a more non-threatening context. Which means that at least the person telling the joke has to have some level of awareness of the issue -- same for anyone who laughs at it. 

I think a lot of the jokes in this bit are good examples:


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

@Wellsy thank you for a thoughtful thread, as usual.

This has me thinking and I'm not sure where I land on this. I do think that humor is a useful tool to unpack a lot of important concepts, and it has the ability to bring together a lot of people with different mindsets and get them talking. It also let's you address things that otherwise would lead to arguments. Examples would be Jon Stewart on the Daily Show when he used humor to address and dress down issues and people vs. his replacement Trevor Noah who is just shouting down people and shaming, which has people tuning out and has resulted in a monotone audience. 

I as a woman find the sexist jokes my dad tells funny. I find some jokes based on race or culture funny. I'm not racist or sexist, but I think humor is humor. I'm also an ENTP. I found it interesting when I lived in the UK that people make fun of each other. All the time. A great example is the best man's speech at a wedding. The sheer cringe (a British term) of things said to embarrass and make fun to an American is unbelievable, but there it is just a matter of doing business. I also noticed a lot less race/sexism issues than living in the US. So, how do you balance people being able to make fun of me for being a woman/American/privileged or my friend for being Indian/arranged marriage/lawyer etc. but still everyone wasn't sensitive and it was the most socially accepting and equal environment I have ever lived in? 

There is a tone to a joke or slander when it is meant to be mean or racist. You just know when you hear it. In good fun (or what used to be in good fun) I think people realize there is not that intent. That said, it is getting harder these days because people are looking for ways to "trap" people. For example the politician in the US that used the term "niggardly" in a speech and was accused of racism because people didn't know what it meant. I think it is negative when you say something that hurts someone's feelings, but everything in the US these days seems to hurt someone's feelings, because people are going around trying to hurt themselves. It is like people are walking into a forest with a blindfold on and running into tress and then wailing that they got injured from hitting a tree. "Cut the tree down so that no one gets hurt anymore!". I think there must be other solutions, but I'm not sure where we go from here.


----------



## 74893H (Dec 27, 2017)

Sexism is a mindset, not an adverb. You aren't sexist because you told a joke about women and you aren't racist because you told a joke about black people. You're sexist because you believe one sex lesser/better than the other and you're racist because you believe one or more races better than others.

Humour brings people together. The best sign that we live in an equal society is that different people can make jokes about each others' differences and laugh about it to each other. By holding certain characteristics in this massive regard and crusading against people that dare make light of them you're just making people dislike those characteristics, and those characteristics will hold more social weight than others. If one gender or one race or one whatever has more social weight than another, then we don't live in an equal society.

Look at us here in the UK + Ireland. The English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish were all killing each just other a few hundred years ago, and now we're telling each other jokes about an Englishman, a Scotsman, a Welshman and an Irishman walking into a bar, and having a great time with it. I think that's fantastic and it shows how far we've come. If you could make jokes about an Englishman, a Welshman and a Scotsman walking into a bar, but you couldn't include Irishmen in that joke because of all the historical atrocities Britain commited against Ireland, then you can bet we'd feel some resentment towards Ireland for it, because they have this pointless protection that we don't have, and we're punished for trying to include them in our fun. Telling those jokes doesn't push us away from each other, it brings us together because we know we have this mutual understanding and we're able to have fun with it. We'll never have an equal society until we learn to stop treating each other like aliens.

But I'm just now realising I never answered the question of why people tell sexist jokes... it's because they're taboo. Taboo jokes have an extra punch for people who like dark humour. It goes against your expectations. There's a line you aren't supposed to cross, and with dark humour you're dancing on that line like it's nothing, and the shock factor of that is funny to a lot of people. There's a reason a lot of people cover their mouths while laughing at offensive jokes, it's the same body language associated with being shocked. "I can't believe you just said that!"


----------



## Ziegel (Feb 11, 2019)

If you're getting mad at someone because of some joke the person has made , the joke including a group (for example the male/female gender), then you deserve the pain you're feeling because you need to grow a spine. Sticks and stones may break my bones...


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

This video i seen a while ago seems relevant for this thread and is basically my opinion when sexist humour is inappropriate.






As a rule if someone makes a joke that members of the opposite sex will be made uncomfortable by, then it's not an appropriate joke. There's a difference between a harmless joke and outright insulting a group of people. There's many shows in the media where sexual harassment or bad treatment of women has been part of the humour. I think this type of humour can also be harmless in the media or irl if done right - take The office as an example. It's a comedy which does involve sexual harassment or jokes but it's clearly meant to be inappropriate.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

All humor is only a deflection of fear. Fear is only an excited state resulting from matching a pattern from the past. If this truth is understood, all humor comes under the scrutiny as imbalanced fear. 

The person using humor, making the 'joke' has seen the pattern and they want to call attention to it. This action is part of the Enneatype 7 motivation, leaping from the patterns of the past to the immediacy of now. The moral aim involved is actually joy. 

All supposed humor exhibits this immoral imbalance in some way. That is to say the objects of interest amid any matched pattern could be said to have that humor occur at their expense. 

But the thing is, like all action, there is a two way street here. The joker and the joked about are both in play. Fear is the motivator of the comment, so what precisely is the joker afraid of? But that is using fear in the colloquial (wrong) sense. When we realize that fear is just an excited state caused by the matching of that pattern in the object we understand that the joker is speaking oddly to calm (or infuse) their own excitement. This means that pattern has indeed affected them, and more to the point, a bit more than some others, after all they noticed and or commented on the issue intentionally. Thus it is in the nature of all humor to reflect quite naturally and specifically on the joker. If we make light of something, that something has serious implications for us in some way.

That is one side, the joker side of the humor model.

The other side is the object, that which is joked about. The pattern recognized is either a fact in evidence or not. Humor has a tangential relationship with anger, with BEING. If the joke is not an accurate pattern, it will not work. But this is not to say that what stings did not work. In fact, if one takes offense at the humor, that is some degree of validation that the pattern struck a true essence. By contrast, if one does not feel the pattern of the humor applies to them, offense has to be actively generated in either a delusional sense or a real sense. There is often no need. General laziness prevents this as well as judgment of humor in most cases. So, often, the real sense of anger means a slow response. Given the general nervousness of humor, its relationship to fear, by the time a genuine anger response is generated, the time to respond has passed. This is why it takes a while poking at an anger type to get a rise. 

Triggered responses to humor are still anger. But, they are generated and can be generated based on what is not actually there. Triggered anger is patterned in fear itself or in desire, an image of what is right or acceptable. They are both delusional responses clouding correct anger. Correct anger does not respond to untruth as offensive by trigger. Correct anger responds to untruth as offensive by choice, and also in being. What I mean by that is that correct anger is itself, in being, and BY EXAMPLE exists in defiance of falsehood. Anger is a balanced emotion and if wise, in balance, does not respond quickly EXCEPT in being. So when it does, you know, you are dealing with an unbalanced, fear or desire infused response of anger. 

---

I know that this thread is speaking in the main about sexist humor, ok. But what is the 99% conjuration of this situation? It is of course male humor directed at the female. Notice the first Abstract in @Wellsy's OP. This is imbalanced and a failure of wisdom.

Men are indeed the bastions of order (fear) genetically. As such they respond with humor (fear) more than females do, just in general. Of course many will state that is a sexist statement right there. Nonetheless it is not. That is not to say that I am saying these over expressions of fear are moral. They are not. But, the feminine side, chaos, desire, is the wishful thinking that order (men and humor) would just please go away. The image based concern for social impact is again desire. The ridiculous unwise non-realization here is that one can be ok and the other not ok. They are both not ok. 

You can't always have what you want, and that is colossal joke on us all. Anger stands to all of this. But not triggered anger. Humor is acceptable, even the darkest most mean humor. Bring it! If it hurts, I know I need work. If I can balance it, and it does not affect me unless I choose to act without being triggered, I know I am wiser. If who I am stands already, in BEING, as enough to resist the joke, making it meaningless, then the full impact of that joke falls only on the joker. BEING is truth. The joker is risking something when they joke. You do not have to overthink that or wish it away.


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

Biologization of emotions. Biologization of gender and essentialization of gender. That's not ok...

It's really interesting to notice that the first part leads to no conclusion on wether a particular joke should be told or not. it's just an hypothesis (true or false, I don't know) on why we are hurt or not by a joke. The thing is, we don't care if a joke hurts, we care if the joke allow a justification of oppression and violence, and in the long term the maintenance of a marginalization with a constant risk of mass murder, or simply murder, on the marginalized demographic. But well we could expect this from a biologization of a human behaviour, that's why we need to cooperate between the different disciplin of science, and not just bring one disciplin while ignoring the other, particularly for the human behaviour.

To continue on what actually humor allow, when you tell a joke which offend someone, you can just say: "That's just a joke". And if none feel offended, then everyone just laugh and get away with joke in mind. That's a normalization with it's own defense mechanism, so you can never have a push back because of the offense your joke could produce. The people with an authoritarion personality love those kind of provocative jokes, because they love authority and love being in the norm, if the hegemonious discourse is sexist, they will find normal to be sexist, and accept any sexist joke and will being able to get away with it, because: "It's just a joke." When confronted with the fact they convey sexism, basically people who are contesting the norm, the hegemonic discourse, they can say: "Hey look, it's just joke I'm totally fine with you, sexism is bad. But that was a joke." And here they appear as following the new norm, but they are not honest, even if they feel like it. This back and forth allow the mechanism mentioned above to keep the spreading of a justification to maintain oppression, we are facing a self-realisation mechanism, politics.

You want to realise the end of sexism, well stop the sexist joke. You don't want to, well, you know what you're realising...

And even more, if you add now a discourse than is not repeating the hegemonious discourse, neither contesting the sexism within our current culture, but goes backward to say, it was good when women didn't want to have a job, but just staying at the house. Your joker is all ready to believe all of it, they are tired of those "SJW" critisizing their joke. What if everyone accept their place and just laugh at where they stand, a bit of humility, after all the genes determines you at where you are in the society... Oh the ones before me was just going to do that with their biologization and essentialization of gender, plus some stereoptyped myth about gender.

So here we are, you want gender equality, stop those sexist joke, even if we're so determine by our genes, when we'll have a non-sexist hegemonious discouse that put biais in our observation of human behaviour, you will at last know what actually the genes determine. Or you can neglect the social and politics, but then, why are you saying what we should and shouldn't do, you don't believe in the social and politics don't you? Well, people with an authoritarian personality have a solution to this, it's called hypocrisy and heavy compartementalized mind, and it works, they never feel cognitive dissonance, isn't that great? Well not for the marginalized people I can assure you.

Sorry for the aggression and the infantilization, I'm angry, I admit, but I feel the need to publish it. Again I'm not open to public debate, and give your sources when you want to make a statement, don't post your opininons, that's noise.

Source:
"The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer
"The Alt-right playbook" by the youtube channel "Innuendo Studios"

I would like to give more, but I'm into queer feminism, which is build upon more fondamental feminist writings, which I didn't had time to read. Sorry


----------



## Alcar (Sep 5, 2018)

Sexist joke is a tool. It can be used in a positive way and a negative way (from what I heard, it is often used in a negative way) and it can have a positive or a negative impact (and, sometimes, both). Just listing some aspects I have in mind:

- Using a jokes in order to dedramatize a shitty behavior. That is obviously toxic.
- Make a joke that emphasize a shitty behavior and show it as shitty. I think it has a positive impact.
- Make fun of oneself. Usually positive if you know that the others respect you.
- In role playing. Lot of space for creativity and fun.
- A joke that target someone. It has definitely a negative impact.

That's definitely not an exhaustive list, but, depending of the context, the same joke can be hurtful and destroy someone or create happiness and strengthen social bonds. You can find some people that do sexist jokes but are so respectful and consider others need and feeling. Obviously, they learned when to do those jokes in a good way. Sometimes, they fail and apologize... if they notice. You can find another group that will never do sexist job or racist joke (very politically correct in the way they speak) but you see that they try to see the wrong part in a certain group of people in order to justify toxic behavior toward them. Obviously, you can also find bad people that do sexist joke and good people that are politically correct.

Personally, sexist joke toward my gender (yeah, woman does sexist joke too... because she can :tongue allow me to monitor how emotionally healthy I am. If I'm hurt, is it because of the content or because of her intent? Did I get her intent right? Will I try to hurt her back as my first response, will I try to scratch a bit the surface and figure out what is her intent or just ignore it?


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

I made the traduction, as best as I could, of a french Wikipedia article that is right on the thematic and discuss benevolent sexism, and actually why sexist jokes against women, even the ones which looks likeable, tend to support discrimination and violence:

"The patriarchal system is a system in which men exert "a structural control on the political, juridical, economical religious institutions". It bases itself on six structures: employment, domestical wokr, culture, sexuality, violence and the State. Those structure are independent but interactions exist between them, and those interactions are at the origin of different kind of patriarchy, which we can regroup within a spectrum with two extremities: the private patriarchy, and the public patriarchy. The private one encompasses the domestical tasks associated to women, who are maintened in the family but excluded from public space. The public one, on the other hand, encompasses salaried work and the State, it segregates and subordinates the women in the public space. For feminists, the patriarchy is "a system of domination from men to women allowing the explanation of the men-women inequality as well as the historical continuity". So we can link this concept (patriarchy) with the one of sexism.

According to system's justification's theory, the gender stereotypes and the benevolent sexism allow three mechanism to maintain the patriarchal system and to justify it:

Roles' justification: the gender stereotypes induce the idea that the people are especially adapted to endorse the gender roles prescribed for them by the society. They somehow "rationalise" the differences between men and women. This "roles' justification" legitimise the system to bring it out not only as fair but also as natural and even unavoidable. This process has been put in evidence by the experimentation form Hoffman and Hurst who have, for the need of the research, invented a world divided in two groups: one was working and the other keeping the children. Even by endowing both groups with equal personality traits (so there was no real differences between both groups other than social), the subjects of the experimentation tended to stereotype the working group as more competent but less cordial than the group who was taking care of the children. The subjects of the experimentation, through the gender stereotypes, explained and justified the social role of each group (meanig the fact of workimg or to take care of the children).

Cooptation: the benevolant sexism prevents women to condemn a system which do not reckon their skills. Indeed, by the attribution of positive qualities to women, they can feel themself "advantaged" and then to support the system which flatter them, at least partly. For example, they could feel complimented and to accept a comment (yet sexist) describing them as "pure", "delicat" and "should be cherished by men". In contrary to the role's justification, this cooptation's process wokrs only on the socially desirable traits promoted by the benevolant sexism (particularly the ones which consider their "warmth" and the "communal" traits).

Gender's stereotypes complementarity: the idea that each group is getting attributed with positive and negative traits legitimize the system turning it as fair, equitable and balanced to the eyes of the individual and, more specifically, to the eyes of women. As matter of fact, while a sexist system denies any feminine aptitude which is out of the domestical and familial purview, the fact that this system assigns a highly positive value to those domains is supposed to compensate the power attributed to men in terms of status and social power. For example, this is by the high valorization of those domestical qualities (by the gender stereotypes) that some women choose to be full-time housewife, confirming and adhering by this way to a sexist society. In other words, the gender stereotypes support a sexist system by considering men and women as "complementary but equal" and by postulating that the housewife's role would be not inferior to the one of the man who work. This idea of an "egalitarian" society coming from the gender stereotypes seems to be, however, a recent point of view.

It must be noted that those three mecanism are not self-sufficient, they need to act in interaction to be effective. In fact, the gender's stereotypes complementarity can just justify a sexist system only if it is supported by process of roles' justification and of cooptation. 

The system's justification's theory supposes that sexism is a consequence of inegalitarion society. Other works show the opposite: sexism would be producing the inequalities. In this line of conduct, an international study carried on 2005 and 2007 in 58 countries leant on the relationship between the sexism's rate and the presence of inequalities in a country. The results show that inequalities between gender are reinforced when hostile sexism is growing in a society. In other words, if two countries have an identical inequality level at start and if the level of sexism is higher in one of them, the country with the highest sexism will see the gender inequalities growing faster in time."

Sources: Nuray Sakalli-Ugurlu et Basak Beydogan, « Turkish College Student's Attitudes Toward Women Managers: The Effects of Patriarchy, Sexism, and Gender Differences », The Journal of Psychology, vol. 136, no 6,‎ 2002, p. 647-656
Sylvia Walby, Theorizing Patriarchy, Wiley-Blackwell, 1990, 240 p.
John Tost et Aaron Kay, « Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes : Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification », Journal of personality and social psychology, vol. 88, no 3,‎ 2005, p. 498-509
Manuela Barreto, Naomi Ellemers, Laura Piebinga et Miguel Moya, How Nice of Us and How Dumb of Me: The Effectof Exposure to Benevolent Sexism on Women’s Taskand Relational Self-Descriptions, vol. 62, Sex Roles, 2010, 532-544 p.
Mark Brandt, « Sexism and Gender Inequality Across 57 Societies », Psychological Science, vol. 22,‎ 2011, p. 1413-1418


----------



## Ziegel (Feb 11, 2019)

Sexist jokes are funny like all the offensive jokes in existence
But they gotta be good ones


----------



## sooka (Mar 20, 2018)

The issue when someone brings up prejudicial jokes lie in the systemic history of the application of such jokes shaping what's considered among the modern social justice movements as triviality of experience and respect. When a person of that group or supporting aforementioned group outright denies the affect of a joke that jabs at a historically oppressed and marginalized demographic , they also outright deny the person's right to hold consent at such jabs and perpetuate the marginalization further by normalizing the usage of the jokes and denying that a person should consent whether or not disrespectful behavior is welcome. You can easily masquerade deep-seated intentions with a cop-out answer such as saying it lacked maliciousness altogether, but whether or not it was a defensive answer to a request to not use a joke to disrespect another person's experience doesn't have much concrete justification other than a lack of concern for the emotional reaction of your peers.

There's also an issue of the relativity of experience. Someone of another race and gender is not likely going to raised with the same cultural experience and influence for, undeniably, we all project and ingratiate different milleius based on what's socially acceptable and desirable. When someone belonging to a marginalized group is often portrayed historically as inferior or hostile, there's a far greater chance the joke will have serious consequences to self-esteem, ego, and in general, behavior. There have been a multitude of studies that support benign attitudes criticisms and trivialization of descriminatory behavior creating further avarice and support of said prejudicial content + attitudes.



> Second, sexist humor evokes a shared understanding of its meta-message only if
> the recipient approves of it, that is, switches to a non-critical humor mindset to
> interpret it (Kane, Suls, & Tedeschi, 1977). Recipients who switch to a nonserious humor mindset tacitly assent to a shared understanding (a social norm) that
> it is acceptable in this particular context to make light of discrimination against
> ...


----------



## Fade (Jul 14, 2019)

I think that sexism in humor is ok.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

WhoIsJake said:


> I love the example Bill Burr gives, A bar put out a sign that says "We like our beer like we like our violence, domestic"
> The 2 people in charge of the bar who put out that sign were fired. Bill explains how nobody is going to be driving home, then read the sign and say "hmm you know what? They are right! I better beat my wife" And taking down the sign isn't going to prevent any future domestic violence acts.


Except that Bill Burr is wrong. His argument makes faulty assumptions. Namely that the only people who hear that joke are people who already have the inclination to disagree with it. But consider for a moment the impact that joke might have on other people:

1. What about a man who is already abusing his wife? How do you think hearing that joke will make him feel? Do you think it will tell him that what he is doing is profoundly wrong and that he should stop or do you think it will tell him that the community of his peers is okay with what he's doing and that he will not be held accountable for it?

2. What about a man who has never hit his wife, but is starting to feel like he wants to hit her and feels that he has justification to punish her for some perceived wrongs? Such an individual may already be emotionally abusive to his wife, and may be heading in the direction of violence already. But when he hears that joke do you think that's going to send the message that he shouldn't? That doing that would be profoundly wrong? Or do you think it's going to tell him that his community isn't really going to care of he does or not?

3. What about the son of a man who is abusive to his wife? When such men are not also abusive to their children they typically attempt to get the children on their side through a variety of tactics including making the mother out to be the strict or unreasonable parent while making themselves look like the fun parent, often making disparaging jokes about the mothers sanity or 'frigidity'. Their sons often hear these jokes and grow up to adopt the same sexist attitudes. So how do you think such an at risk youth would feel hearing those joke? If he remembers the joke how do you think it will influence his attitude towards woman and his likelihood of becoming abusive himself? (the research on these subject matters that I've seen is that such jokes very much reinforce relating with with the father and excusing his behavior.)

4. And what about a woman who is scared that her intimidating husband might hit her? Does this send the message that if he does she will have allies and people in the community who will care and support her? 

5. What about a woman whose husband beats her on a regular basis? Does this send the message that anybody will care if she speaks out? Or does it do the opposite?

There is extensive research indicating that disparaging humor about opposing perspectives is a very powerful tool in solidifying a political bases stances. People are just more likely to listen to a political joke that paints other people they don't agree with in a negative light then they are to listen to a well formulated rational two-sided debate. Maybe not all people. But more than enough. 

I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that jokes are not just jokes. They carry messages and they carry weight. When a joke is disparaging about women it sends a sexist message, it pushes people who are on the boarder towards a more sexist attitude, and it reinforces the beliefs of sexist people. And maybe an individual joke doesn't carry a substantial quantity of weight, but many jokes do and one joke can set a precedent for the many jokes that follow it.

I'm not anti-humor. But humor is not innocent or impact-less.


----------



## Gurthang (Aug 21, 2019)

I remember reading something of Freud's daughter about psychological defense mechanisms a very long time ago, and that humor is a (mature) lvl 4 defense mechanism. Somewhat funny when considering that people laugh and crack jokes at parties while I sit quietly and take mental notes ^^


----------



## Queen Talia (Aug 21, 2017)

Ziegel said:


> If you're getting mad at someone because of some joke the person has made , the joke including a group (for example the male/female gender), then you deserve the pain you're feeling because you need to grow a spine. Sticks and stones may break my bones...


So true. What was it that guy said in an interview? "Sticks and stones will break my bones but there will always be something to offend a feminist" rings true here.


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

Depends on intent. I could tell dead baby jokes, that wouldn't mean I actually want to kill your babies. I just laugh because its so over the top and morbid to the point of absurdity. Similarly, a sexist joke does not necessarily have to reflect a person's worldview, though it can. That's the point, its a joke, its not real. The risk is part of what makes fucked up jokes so funny, you rarely hear such things being said because of the social taboo. Then, you suddenly hear it out loud, and you're caught off guard, and its so extreme that the exaggeration makes it impossible to take seriously. Hence, it becomes a joke.

In a way, its actually a lot worse to hold back on such jokes. When you remove the comical exaggeration, you blur the line between what is real and what is being mocked.

Take for instance this episode of spongebob. Would it still be funny if it had been toned down? Or does the humor come from of making light of the real world through impossible levels of absurdity?


----------

