Racist, Sexist and other-ist Jokes

Well, this has been a disappointing thread.

quote:

---

I've just e-mailed the Administrator to tell him/her that you're not only dehumanizing me and everyone else on this board, but also dehumanizing primates and unicorns. Unfortunately his or her mailbox was full.

---

Cool! I'm so glad you did that, NoBalls, as it clearly demostrates your failure to deal with or counter my argument, as I already pointed out to Mammathus.

contracycle, And as I have DEMONSTRATED, rather than just asserted, you are wrong. A person hearing the same joke in different contexts may report feeling offended, or not, or dehumanised, or not. It is not your call to insist someone is dehumanised when they themselves disagree. A bit arrogant, don't you think?How would you go about convincing someone that they have been dehumanised when they just can't see that they have? In this case they perceive no injury, hence it is subjective. It's subjective to the alleged victim. I just explained this, several times, dammit. You may believe you have dehumanised someone & actually not have. You have to be one of the most pig-ignorant avoiders of arguments that has graced this forum, & you are up against some strong competition.Something can't be offensive if no offense is taken. Ergo, the best you can say is they are sometimes offensive. I have made this very same point multiple times, & the best you can do is give me another baseless reassertion? Pitiful. HOOORAY!!!!They can be, & unoffensive (because no offense is taken) & funny to the group that is the butt of the joke. Offensive nature to some. Others don't take offense, remember? Of course it bloody does! What YOU deign to call dehumanising, isn't necessarily what I would consider dehumanising. You don't get to say what causes me offense. Therefore, it IS subjective. Don't be a fuckwit all your life. What sort of fuckwit response was that?Those people simply don't agree with you that they have been offended or dehumanised. You can crybaby about it all you want, you don't get to say what the above consider as being dehumanising to them. It is subjective to them. Again, another fuckwit response. Do you really think that was an adequate & germaine? It wasn't pertinent in the slightest.Different people have different ideas about what they would find & offensive & dehumanising, & it is context dependent. Otherwise ALL Irish people would feel dehumanised whenever an Irish joke was uttered, but they don't. Yes, see above. It would be more accurate to consider your own position conceited, because you deign to tell people what is dehumanising to them. In really, they get to decide, not you.It is possible for the intent to cause offence to fail miserably.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-05-2004 11:22 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

I've just e-mailed the Administrator to tell him/her that you're not only dehumanizing me and everyone else on this board, but also dehumanizing primates and unicorns. Unfortunately his or her mailbox was full.....What's "irony"?

---

I have also emailed the administrator as contracycle below has confused irony with the metal....and hate speech against the periodic table will not be tolerated.

quote:

---

Cool! I'm so glad you did that, NoBalls, as it clearly demostrates your failure to deal with or counter my argument, as I already pointed out to Mammathus.

---

I also emailed the administrator regarding contracycles clear attempt at dehumanizing humor, replacing Mammuthus (the genus including the woolly mammoth) with Mammathus...a reference to an Estonian minority that was persecuted by drunk Finnish carpet cleaners in the late 1770's...or so I saw in a review of a book I never read.Unfortunately, the mails bounced back with the warning "stupid mails from uptight self righteous boobs are undeliverable at this time"...apparently contracycle is receiving this message rather often....

quote:

---

Unfortunately, the mails bounced back with the warning "stupid mails from uptight self righteous boobs are undeliverable at this time"...apparently contracycle is receiving this message rather often....

---

And my detractors paint themselves as the very picture of tolerance...

And I mailed an administrator reporting your flagrant or fragrant dinigration of mammoths by calling them mere genus instead of the genius category they so rightly occupy. You may try to get by by assertin other meaning or simple misspelling but I gnu you really were speaking hatefully.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

[qupte] It is not your call to insist someone is dehumanised when they themselves disagree. A bit arrogant, don't you think?[/quote]No, Mark. You really should try to learn sopmething about a topic before you pntificate on it.When the Nazi's produced anti-semitic cartoons, when hitler wrote about the evil Jew purposefully contaminating the Aryan bloodline, Jews are NOT THE AUDIENCE. Other Aryans are the audience; the aim is to dehumanise Jews in the eyes of other Aryans, not in the Jews own eyes.so whether you FEEL dehumanised or not is wholly, completely, totally, IRRELEVANT. This is not feel-good hippy shit; its the manipulation of social signs.

quote:

---

You may believe you have dehumanised someone & actually not have.

---

Impossible. If I believe it, I have done it. I have declared them not huiman in my moral system, not protected by human rights, not my equal. Their opinion doesn't matter a jot.

quote:

---

They can be, & unoffensive (because no offense is taken) & funny to the group that is the butt of the joke.

---

Only if they accept and collude in their dehumanisation.

quote:

---

Offensive nature to some. Others don't take offense, remember?

---

Still irrelevant, I'm afraid.

quote:

---

Don't be a fuckwit all your life. What sort of fuckwit response was that?

---

A serious one.

quote:

---

It is subjective to them.

---

It is not SUBJECTIVE to anyone at all.[qupte] Yes, see above. It would be more accurate to consider your own position conceited, because you deign to tell people what is dehumanising to them. In really, they get to decide, not you.[/quote]No, I'm afraid they don;t. This just dfemonstrates yopu don't understand what I mean by dehumanisation; to you its just a buzzword. Come back when you have a serious point to make.

quote:

---

You may try to get by by assertin other meaning or simple misspelling but I gnu you really were speaking hatefully.

---

Fortunately, I have consistently maintained that subjective perception is irrelevant. Thus your complaint, like those before you, only demonstrates that you cannot follow the argument.

contracycle,For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct. There exists a group of people that are dehumanised (according to you) despite their perception that they are not. We get a situation where people actually don't mind being dehumanised, people don't care, because it means nothing to them, it's an irrelevance.There's some prat on the internet jumping up & down telling them that they should be offended, of course, but this doesn't change the fact that they aren't. They don't care what your list of dehumanising things are. Your little world of offense disappears in a puff of logic. They are in no way hurt or affected by allegedly being dehumanised.The act of separating verbal dehumanisation from offence, when none is taken, renders any notion or definition of dehumanisation as being a "bad" thing, as moot.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-06-2004 10:35 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

And I mailed an administrator reporting your flagrant or fragrant dinigration of mammoths by calling them mere genus instead of the genius category they so rightly occupy. You may try to get by by assertin other meaning or simple misspelling but I gnu you really were speaking hatefully.

---

And I mailed the administrator reporting you clear hate and bias against my flatulant (not fragrant or flagrant) denigration of mammoths...you may think you think that I think that it is not dehumanizing but that does not matter one jot. If I think I think or some dead guy might have thought he construed an insult you would be dehumanized...in fact, if a guy is alone in the woods and he tells himself a joke it has dehumanized the planet because if someone had heard the joke and taken offense, the person would have been dehumanized whether they think they think they are or thought they thought so once....and even the trees are dehumanized because they might have heard the joke and taken offense since context and being human or not is irrelvant and arrant stupidity...get it? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The intolerance here is amazing...now I will go ask my buddy contracycle to tell me some more great anti-semitic jokes....

Does that include iotas and tittles because we know not one I&T can be changed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

While of course there are women who murder their intimate partners because they insanely want to control them, I wonder how many women kill because they see no way out of an abusive relationship.

---

Quite a few, no doubt, but since female-on-male domestic violence seems to be just about as prevalent as male-on-female domestic violence with about a quarter being him beating her, a quarter being her beating him, and the rest being the two beating each other, and since the violence women commit against men tends to be more violent than the violence men do to women (women are more likely to use weapons than men, for example) I would doubt that we could say that women don't get violent unless pushed to it as a general rule.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

and since the violence women commit against men tends to be more violent than the violence men do to women (women are more likely to use weapons than men, for example)

---

Uh, that can't be right.Domestic Violence Support | The National Domestic Violence Hotline IOW, women may be perpetrating violence upon men, but it's the women who end up getting injured at a much greater rate and with greater severity.

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

and since the violence women commit against men tends to be more violent than the violence men do to women (women are more likely to use weapons than men, for example)

---

​

Uh, that can't be right.

---

Again, misreading the statistics. The numbers provided assume that men and women go to the hospital to be treated for injuries at the same rate. It may, instead, be that women are more likely to be treated in a hospital for injuries that were inflicted by their intimate than men because men are more likely to be treated in a hospital for injuries.And let us not forget the bias of self-reporting. Just as we know that violence against women is underreported by the woman seeing the doctor ("I ran into a door"), violence against men is even more underreported by the man seeing the doctor ("I got into a bar fight.") Very few men are going to admit having been beaten by their wives/girlfriends.So unless we're saying that women don't get violent until they kill, then we must conclude that women are not the victims society makes them out to be. They are quite often the perpetrators, too.As Straus and Gelles (Intimate Violence) found in their surveys of violence:

Rates per yer per 1000 couples of various forms of violence:
​
Survey #1            Survey #2
husbands  wives      husbands  wives
1) Threw something                         28       52          28       43
2) Pushed, grabbed, or shoved             107       83          93       89
3) Slapped                                 51       46          29       41
4) Kicked, bit, or hit with fist           24       31          15       24
5) Hit or tried to hit with something      22       30          17       30
6) Beat up                                 11        6           8        4
7) Threaten with gun or knife               4        6           4        6
8) Used gun or knife                        3        2           2        2
​
Overall violence (1-8)                    121      116         113      121
Severe violence  (5-8)                     38       46          30       44

None of this reduces the problem of violence against women. It simply points out that violence against women is not the only thing out there. We cannot fight all the battles and if someone wishes to help women out of abusive relationships, then more power to him. But let us not demonize men in order to help women.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mark, you are just playing the idiot:

quote:

---

For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct. There exists a group of people that are dehumanised (according to you) despite their perception that they are not. We get a situation where people actually don't mind being dehumanised, people don't care, because it means nothing to them, it's an irrelevance.

---

Right. So for example, there used to be a group od Iraqi's who were unaware that Americans on the net were refferringto them as "sand niggers". They did not know they were being dehumanised, and did not take offence...

quote:

---

The act of separating verbal dehumanisation from offence, when none is taken, renders any notion or definition of dehumanisation as being a "bad" thing, as moot.

---

.... but regardless of whether they were offended, those Americans came over and - knowing that sand-niggers are Not People Too - they ended up with electrodes attached to their genitals. And I can assure you: at that point they cared very much indeed.But M|rk, I'nm quite sure you could have figured that out for yourself, if you could be bothered. Why these extraordinary intellectual contortions to defend racist scum?