"Relax, it's just a joke."

I apologise in advance if what I say sounds convoluted and ill structured, it's a surprisingly hard topic I find to talk about without going into the vast realm of Political Correctness.

I think though, within todays world where everything is so socially regulated, where some people act as self-appointed jurors and executioners online, comedy one may view as 'inappropriate', 'rude' or 'insensitive' is more so a method of discerning who is one of these self-appointed regulators, and who appreciates a joke (meant with no malicious intent or some inferable subliminal message) for what it is - a joke.
It is from this I believe, and have seen from my own experience, that people use such comedy to gauge who they see as just another 'keyboard warrior' and to see who has a lighter approach, not only seeing a joke for its literal wording but the meaning underneath.

From my experience I agree with what others have said on this thread, that it is a communal tool meant to encourage our relations and even respect of each other. The beauty particularly of disparaging humour is that no one is safe, where if one person wishes to partake in it and make a joke of something someone else has done (in good faith), that person can in turn return such treatment. I found that it were the groups that used this sort of humour particularly that were the closest, friendliest and most comfortable - those who in comparison did not, were deemed by others more fractured and disingenuous. I will admit however that such humour proved hard on a newcomer to our group despite their actions and participation suggesting they had no issue with it. Yet in them repressing that which they truly wanted to express, their feelings only festered until it became projected onto certain individuals of the group before their eventual leaving. So I think comedy is good in any form when meant in no malicious way, and that the key is communication. If you find being the butt of a joke hard to cope with for whatever reason, voice that discomfort and let it be known - most are courteous enough to stop. If you hear something you do not like amongst a certain group, remove yourself or simply do not react to what may not have been intended for you. Comedy is an effective tool, and its effectiveness can only be retained when there are no restraints on how it can be used
 
Ren said:
it seems irresponsible to me to trivialise another person's negative reaction by claiming that "it's just a joke, relax". No, that negative reaction was the risk you were taking by assuming it would be okay to make the inappropriate joke. If the risk backfires then you should own up to it, not continue to take the other person for granted.
Click to expand...

and I think here is the crux of the matter, at least in this community. Since this is where we live. Spend any time here and you should pick up the vibe of what and where certain kinds of humor are appropriate. For example, if you go to a Don Rickles performance, you expect raw and insulting comedy, that's what he does.
it is important to pick up on cues, and when you are told flat out that your humor is not humor, it is important to understand that it is not. . at least here, in this place and at this time. It is the tone deaf person that causes discord, and they need to be more alert to when and where. . if you need to raucous and raw, find the right place for it. .
 
Aneirin said:
and I think here is the crux of the matter, at least in this community. Since this is where we live. Spend any time here and you should pick up the vibe of what and where certain kinds of humor are appropriate. For example, if you go to a Don Rickles performance, you expect raw and insulting comedy, that's what he does.
it is important to pick up on cues, and when you are told flat out that your humor is not humor, it is important to understand that it is not. . at least here, in this place and at this time. It is the tone deaf person that causes discord, and they need to be more alert to when and where. . if you need to raucous and raw, find the right place for it. .
Click to expand...
I'd go a bit further - I think that in the forum some of this is not from folks who are just ignorant, but from people who know exactly what they are doing and get their kicks from being disruptive and baiting other people. I expect there are special places in hell for this sort of humour when it's destructive rather than constructive.

Then there are the situations elsewhere in the world where we are alone and out of our depth in incongruent groups. To be different from everyone else in the only social setting available to you, and be the butt end of their humour because you are different - and lack the sharp-edged wit of the right quality for the culture to respond in kind. How many of us play these scenes over in our heads and think of the right response days after it's stopped being of any use?

Humour detached from compassion is foul sometimes. That doesn't mean it has to be nice - far from it! Sometimes it helps someone to develop if they are shaken up a bit. But humour directed at dismantling someone is foul, even if that was not a conscious intent but in effect the outcome.
 
John K said:
I'd go a bit further - I think that in the forum some of this is not from folks who are just ignorant, but from people who know exactly what they are doing and get their kicks from being disruptive and baiting other people. I expect there are special places in hell for this sort of humour when it's destructive rather than constructive.
Click to expand...

That's sadly true also. Some people have a weird (and certainly unhealthy) addiction to drama and conflict. They find it more exciting when 'factions' are formed and oppose one another. Unfortunately a bad joke can be one of the strategies deployed to this end, with a heavy dose of manipulation throughout, of course.

Really, in those situations I think the best tactic is to remain hyper rational, because whatever emotional reaction one may have will be inherently more divisive than reason.

Whenever there is drama on this forum, it can usually be traced back to quite specific actions.
 
My general take on this issue is that I try to avoid any generalizations on what constitutes 'inappropriate' and make it entirely a matter of how the comment affects the person in question and the true intentions of the person making the joke. The strict requirements are:
- the person making the joke had better truly be an empathetic person in reality, i.e. it should be a joke, not something the person believes
- if the person listening to the joke is known to be viscerally distressed at such jokes, then one shouldn't subject them to it against their will, for the same reason I wouldn't subject someone (against their will) with a serious fear of diseases to a situation that would lead them to think they're in danger, even if I and many others can verify such situations never put them in danger.

But I do favor unrestricted ability to joke however people want if all parties involved are confirmed to not be negatively affected.

In settings where one doesn't know the people involved well, erring on the side of caution seems to be the best idea.
 
Rit4lin said:
I found that it were the groups that used this sort of humour particularly that were the closest, friendliest and most comfortable - those who in comparison did not, were deemed by others more fractured and disingenuous.
Click to expand...

This is the part that troubles me somewhat.

By continually reducing the range of what's considered acceptable humor, you also reduce the ability for groups to form deeper, more authentic bonds. I think a lot of self-appointed morality police confuse good intentions with good results, believing there's an inversely proportional relationship there -- "if we can get everyone to stop saying mean things and be more inclusive, the world will be eventually be filled with light and love!" In my experience, that is true to a very limited extent but then it starts to work against how humans actually relate and become friends.

For example, I lived in Texas over ten years ago. A lot of my friends were Mexicans and part of the way we bridged the gap (I'm a white American) was fucking with each about about nationality and race. To a casual observer who wasn't part of the group, it sounded like bigotry and racism, but what we were actually doing is building a foundation upon us as human beings rather than arbitrary demographics that weren't central to our identities. Then some miserable dipshit overheard us and complained to HR (we all worked together). It didn't change anything overall, but it bothered me this individual couldn't see beyond their own myopic value system and actually felt entitled (and probably even righteous) enough prescribe a new way for us to communicate, with the tacit message our jobs were in jeopardy if we didn't obey. Of course it was some obnoxious white, far left, middle class suburban dwelling type.

I've since noticed the people around me who are the most miserable, lonely and excluded from friendship circles are often the ones who are perpetually aggrieved about these matters and can't seem to grok that their constant bristling and "calling out" of problematic behavior is why nobody likes them. I don't care if they want to be that way, but don't try to fuck up my life and friends because you're socially stunted.
 
Ren said:
That's sadly true also. Some people have a weird (and certainly unhealthy) addiction to drama and conflict. They find it more exciting when 'factions' are formed and oppose one another. Unfortunately a bad joke can be one of the strategies deployed to this end, with a heavy dose of manipulation throughout, of course.

Really, in those situations I think the best tactic is to remain hyper rational, because whatever emotional reaction one may have will be inherently more divisive than reason.

Whenever there is drama on this forum, it can usually be traced back to quite specific actions.
Click to expand...
Very much agree Ren. Looking at these situations dispassionately, I can see that these folks are deeply disturbed and wounded. That doesn't mean they are not dangerous and what they do is bad - they can be highly skilled socially but they seem to have been warped by life and use those skills destructively. It's like having a wildcat in the house.

But the issues that @Odyne 's original post raises take this issue and generalises it in my mind. None of us can escape our personal history and so we bring with us the world view that we were presented with as children and teenagers. I have a horror of slotting someone because of their sex, religion, race because in my core I can see / feel that these are superficial - more than that, I feel the almost infinite value of every person. But is that horror enough to always trump trivial learned preferences that just come out in the spur of the moment? And I can quite easily laugh at the video I posted, or at a sexist joke, or one about the Irish (mind you ethnically I'm more than half Irish so does that count?). They are funny, but are they OK?

It's a wonderful thing that half the human race, previously held back as the weak sex, is slowly succeeding in asserting itself. For God's sake, women and men survived in the wild for hundreds of thousand of years without all that crap. We are all survivors of the Ice Age.

I'd hate to see an over-reaction though with men apologising for their biology - and for humour being suppressed just in case. In the end, I think common sense is the best way. Let's all be tolerant of humour - up to a point. I buy the idea that it can bond as much as it can disrupt. Let's license it to take the piss out of the King, like the jester in a medieval court. And if it gets out of hand - we can hang the bastard, which is also funny ......
 
What is valued in a group context is dictated by frame and he (or she) who controls the frame controls the room. Humor and boundary signalling are both framing devices... and disruptions in frame frequently appear when there is an insecurity about who holds the power. Sometimes a re-framing is required to benefit the group; sometimes its meant as a benefit to the individual. Harmony requires matching the dominant frame to the needs of the group. Discord appears when one or two individuals are out of step with the group and attempt to change the frame too quickly, or when one or two individuals is too rigid in their expectations of the interaction and resist a natural frame change.

It's a higher order social skill to be able to manipulate the frame without putting yourself outside of the group. Or being too presumptuous about your role in the existing social hierarchy. Generally, you have to connect with people before you project on people. Those who mix up that order tend to be considered obnoxious.

The thing is, in an open social space like this forum, the social landscape is fragmented by not interacting in real time with a consistent group of individuals. What is appropriate for one social group isn't going to be appropriate for the other, and sometimes there is overlap and expectations will clash. Then there's also the matter of text not translating all the appropriate nuances of communication. There's no elegant solution to this other than loosening our expectations a bit and being aware of our penchant to project onto text rather than connect with it. I think this will go a long way in helping us better get on with one another.

In essence: read the room before you attempt to lead the room.
 
sassafras said:
What is valued in a group context is dictated by frame and he (or she) who controls the frame controls the room. Humor and boundary signalling are both framing devices... and disruptions in frame frequently appear when there is an insecurity about who holds the power. Sometimes a re-framing is required to benefit the group; sometimes its meant as a benefit to the individual. Harmony requires matching the dominant frame to the needs of the group. Discord appears when one or two individuals are out of step with the group and attempt to change the frame too quickly, or when one or two individuals is too rigid in their expectations of the interaction and resist a natural frame change.

It's a higher order social skill to be able to manipulate the frame without putting yourself outside of the group. Or being too presumptuous about your role in the existing social hierarchy. Generally, you have to connect with people before you project on people. Those who mix up that order tend to be considered obnoxious.

The thing is, in an open social space like this forum, the social landscape is fragmented by not interacting in real time with a consistent group of individuals. What is appropriate for one social group isn't going to be appropriate for the other, and sometimes there is overlap and expectations will clash. Then there's also the matter of text not translating all the appropriate nuances of communication. There's no elegant solution to this other than loosening our expectations a bit and being aware of our penchant to project onto text rather than connect with it. I think this will go a long way in helping us better get on with one another.

In essence: read the room before you attempt to lead the room.
Click to expand...
This sounds way too complicated. The simple answer is men and their dicks
 
Heh. This is an interesting and hot topic.

The article linked in the opening post did a funny.
There was an error in Table 6. The last row of data should have read “Obese”, not “Mexican”.
Click to expand...
That just makes me laugh. Who was the guy in their office who encounters so many fat Mexicans that he ran on autopilot entering data one morning and accidentally messed this one up? :sweatsmile:

That may not be funny to you, which is fine, we all have a different sense of humor.
But,
Odyne said:
"On the basis of these findings, one might conclude that disparagement humor targeting oppressed or disadvantaged groups is inherently destructive and thus should be censured.
Click to expand...
did I really just do something destructive by pointing out an unfortunate slipup?

I hope that statement sounds as ridiculous to you as it does to me.

That said, I would never tell anyone "It's just a joke, bruh", when someone is personally hurt by a joke I made, cause that's really dismissive and disrespectful. It basically says "Your feelings are invalid and don't matter." No, duck that. It takes guts to be authentic and vulnerable, cause you risk upsetting the status quo. We all have our sensitive spots, and we should be mindful of them in our interactions with others, so I will apologize and take their position into account in the future. Besides, jokes are supposed to be funny. If noone's laughing, it's a failed joke.
However,
Odyne said:
For prejudiced people, the belief that “a disparaging joke is just a joke” trivializes the mistreatment of historically oppressed social groups – including women, gay people, racial minorities and religious minorities – which further contributes to their prejudiced attitude."
Click to expand...
I won't apologize if someone comes at me with "you can't laugh at that, that's offensive to that particular group". Oh, really? How do you know that? Did you speak to all members of that particular group? And why are you speaking for them? How infantilizing. How offensive.

The irony.
 
Intention matters a lot, but we have seen many different values that matter to different people. It's therefore advisable to know a little more about the individuals' values before expressing yourself in a way that may be perceived inappropriate. It may be a somewhat cautious approach, too cautious and restrictive for some, but with regards to this forum it's what the OP and the general gist of the thread are for. If you're known for behaving or expressing a particular way, there is a lot of leeway that's being granted before perceiving commentary as hurtful, disrespectful or just plain idiotic. If you're new, however, keep barging in everywhere without any regard to either the OP or the kind of posts being made etc., the reception of commentary that is taking whatever comes before completely out of context, for whatever reason, may be taken and regarded as an infringement of group harmony, however it was expressed before. As such, one's role within a community is a deciding factor in perception as well as the intent. Because the intent is unknown when said role is undefined. A lot of you have mentioned inside jokes and how they are both formative and expressive of intimate bonds within a group. Those are roles as well, because the ones inside the group have established their roles towards one another and therefore the intent and context remains clear to everyone involved.

Lady Jolanda said:
That said, I would never tell anyone "It's just a joke, bruh", when someone is personally hurt by a joke I made, cause that's really dismissive and disrespectful. It basically says "Your feelings are invalid and don't matter." No, duck that. It takes guts to be authentic and vulnerable, cause you risk upsetting the status quo. We all have our sensitive spots, and we should be mindful of them in our interactions with others, so I will apologize and take their position into account in the future. Besides, jokes are supposed to be funny. If noone's laughing, it's a failed joke.
Click to expand...
So much this. We have a lot of this going on around here - having sensitive spots, that is. If you walk into a situation without looking around, you're bound to get shot. The "joke" backfires and blows up in your face when you've got the wrong crowd. All comedians have a way of reading the room, some walking the line of what's possible or not - Jimmy Carr is an interesting example of that. But us laymen aren't experts and shouldn't take this lightly. "Reading the room" is just incremental to any social interaction imo, whether you're joking or not, because you might just be in the wrong crowd to want to risk being edgy.
 
Also,

Could I suggest that if you find yourself being offended by something someone has said, you take accountability for your own feelings and deal with them constructively on your own? Redirect the energy. I know we some always do this like I got mad at somebody for calling me dear in a thread but then we smoothed that over. But if you can when you're offended just figure out why, deal with the emotion, move on.

What is the point of holding onto negative feelings? Not good for the body. We can experience them but then we must get rid of them by funnelling them into something like exercise or art, or simply letting them go.

Don't look for healing at the feet of those who broke you.

Even if someone said or did something wrong to you, you have to understand everyone is doing their best to be happy therefore from their perspective they did what was right.

Maybe you disagree. But was the severity of the hurt enough that you feel you need to expel your own energy to change it?

If you live that way you're going to be very disappointed, because you can't control other people's behavior. You can't make someone explain themselves or apologize. Sometimes people will. Other times they won't.

We have to accept everyone's individuality- and some people use jokes to diffuse tension and tragedy instead of though somber tears.

On average, the human brain will only experience a single feeling for six seconds. However if you continue to think about the emotion that will prolong it. We chose to dwell on things, to focus on our hurts, rather than to purposefully direct your thought.

Thoughts aren't real. They're just thoughts, they go away, you can change them, you can reject thoughts too.

Many people who find they are easily upset should likely look into cognitive behavioral therapy, it will really help you to temper emotions so that they don't control you anymore.

Don't LET other people occupy your headspace. If you find someone else's words in there, kick them out and replace it with your own thoughts. We all have that power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top