Humour

On Monday there was a bit of a spat on here (on the CertainRelegation ... thread) around a post from Hornet4ever providing a link to the Samaritans for those of us that were so distraught over our failure to secure three points on Saturday that they might require the Samaritans' services.

As far as I could tell it wasn't a joke but an observation, it wasn't meant to poke fun at mental health sufferers or others in dire straits for various reasons and it wasn't in any way meant to belittle their problems. It was simply a rather cute and ironic way of suggesting to those moaning and groaning that they might get a bit of perspective. It was only a football match. And, as such, was actually supportive of real sufferers one of whom is the brave Oxhey67. I hope he/she's OK. There is b.t w., some evidence to suggest that a 'lightening of the mood' does in fact benefit sufferers/victims in a number of areas.

wfcmoog and Tut took particular umbrage to the original. Jumbo, sydney, Cassetti's Beard and Grrrwood were supportive of the complaint. Only I was supportive of the original poster. That original post would now appear to have been taken down probably with slapped wrists administered. For goodness sake!

Phrases such as "pretty poor taste" and "in such utterly poor taste" were bandied about in an attempt to take the moral high ground while accusing the original poster of trying to do the same. Well for those of you who sit on that particular high horse, I've got news for you. That 'taste' judgement is just about the most subjective one that can be made. There's absolutely no commonality around it whatsoever.

However, in a probably vain attempt to find some sort of concensus (should it unexpectedly exist), what do we collectively think is acceptable and what isn't?

It was suggested that "there is clearly a long list of topics that should be off limits e.g. paedophilia, rape, racism etc.". Well except that those topics aren't 'off limits'. Personally, I think the first two should be but that's my subjective view. I'm not going to extrapolate that by taking the moral high ground and suggest that everybody else should think exactly similarly to me. That there should be some sort of 'national concensus' administered by thought police.

Racism shouldn't be 'on the list'. The butt of racist jokes are racists. Neither should race per se. Race humour is now mainstream and if we can all laugh at ourselves then we'll all get along much better. And, most certainly, neither should religion. The more religion gets ripped into the better. All religions mind, including the most precious of the lot. Disappear up your own arse then you simply paint a bigger target on your back.

Now some libertarians say there should be no 'limits' at all. Freedom of speech and all that. A licence to 'shock and awe'. Others of a more 'control freakery' persuasion don't want to offend anybody. Which would involve bending the knee to the most easily offended. What a beautifully bland and humourless world that would be. I'm somewhere in the middle.

Where are others' views on this thorny topic?

 

Didn't see the thread in question, but based on your description of it it sounds like a fairly harmless tongue in cheek comment. Of course, exact verbiage can be key in situations like these.

Black humour has been a staple of British comedy since long before I was born, though. I tend to subscribe to Trey Parker/Matt Stone's philosophy: either every topic is fair game, or nothing is. Note that is topic, not joke. Some are clearly well over the line.

 

I have been upset in the past by what I thought was unnecessary bullying of one or two other posters, but that has been after what I thought was a sustained attack. I may have been wrong, or right, who knows, but it was my opinion which I expressed, but wouldn't have asked for any "banning".

But I think humour is unjustly curtailed. It is no secret on here that I think the "snowflakes" should just accept humour on most subjects, and I probably agree with Cley on this. Readers may not find it funny (then don't laugh), or they may find it offensive (then just move on).

Similarly, anyone that posts what they think is funny, should accept any criticism fired back at them. That is the potential consequence. And in turn, those that criticise the attempt at humour should then accept the flak if they receive it.

It all means that we should make our own judgements on such things, whether to get involved or not.

No one on here should be the ultimate judge on behalf of everyone else. as to what is acceptable

 

Moderation of a forum is an interesting one. I've done it here and elsewhere for 20 odd years now and apart from the odd issue it's gone fairly smoothly. So I'll throw some experience into the ring.

It's all too easy to put together a mental picture of someone on-line, making assumptions about them. With a forum there's a certain level of detachment which means that things are sometimes typed which would never be said to a person's face. Assumptions are made about people's character which can be massively wide of the mark. Forums are nothing without the contributors and we can't have a situation where members are chased off because of what they perceive is a hostile environment. What is acceptable to one or many, might send someone else over the edge who is suffering personal issues that the forum as a whole doesn't know about.

ZZ touches on an important issue above. a seemingly harmless comment, repeated relentlessly over a period of time can grind someone down. It's bullying, but looking at one individual instance could seem harmless. ZZ is also sort of wrong with respect to no one should judge what is acceptable. Ultimately the site admin is legally responsible for what is posted. He puts his arse on the line free of charge to provide this place and his decisions about what goes on the forum or not and as such his wishes should be respected. He appoints a moderating team to help him carry out this task. It's his house, his rules and everyone has agreed to abide by those rules by being on here. The admin team judge what is acceptable to the forum, not what is acceptable to other people.

All the mods, without fail moderate with the best interests of the site at heart. More often than not there's a discussion in the background before decisions are made. Sometimes stuff is done silently so as to not cause a fuss and not ruin the flow, sometimes a private word sometimes a public slap down, but pretty much always off the back of complaints. Ie members not liking something.

Work and school safe filters pick up on words, phrases, topics and can block sites automatically if they don't like what they see. Take it from me it's an absolute ball ache trying to get a site unblocked from one of these filter sites. We had a gambling thread a few years ago which flagged the site up as on-line gambling and suddenly I was unable to view & moderate the site from my work PC. OK not a massive issue if other mods are able to manage the site but how many members access would that affect?

 

Meister, yes of course the mods have the right to judge. I didn't mean them, as they have the site to think of and the legal aspects, too.

I was referring to others who post hyperbolic reactions to a mildly offensive bit of humour, and then instead of just moving on, they continue to assume that everybody must be saved from it.

More often than not, mildly offensive or even very offensive actually cause no harm at all and it is better of just left to die a death rather than trying to make a moral high ground stance, that inevitable prolongs the "offence" by raking it up, over and over again with the offender having to justify themselves.

Just cringe if you want, just maybe a quick "... a bit soon?" type of comment, then move on.

 

The actual post was ""Link below for all the whiney melts on here. https://www.samaritans.org/"
I simply noted that it wasn't in great taste to suggest that anyone believing we will be relegated should call the samaritans. Partly because a recentish thread on the subject showed a number of forum members have suffered from mental illness including Oxhey 67 as Cley notes above. Also partly because it belittles what a tremendous organisation, The Samaritans do. They don't deal with football fans who are disappointed that their favourite football team will be relegated. As Moog noted, suicide is the biggest killer of men under 50 (hope I got that right ?). And partly because expecting relegation doesn't equate to depression in my and most other posters mindsets.
It was not a big deal and I don't think it warranted the excitment it generated on that thread or a whole new separate thread. On another day I wouldn't even have bothered to post that I felt it wasn't great taste.
Of course "bantz" will sail close to the wind and we can't always know the backgrounds of individual posters or their families or close friends. As I said on the thread I think we just need to be careful not to make a joke of subjects like suicide, rape, paedophilia etc because it's a football forum, not a Frankie Boyle live gig . There are also sponsors and advertisers on the website who the mods will understandably be conscious of.

 

That last sentence is the whole point of the o.p. Some jokes are "clearly well over the line". Well to you maybe but not to others. Not to 'comedy libertarians' certainly. They don't have a line. So it's all subjective.

The only objective test that's applied nationally in legal terms I think is 'incitement to hatred' towards a variety of minority groups. I'd suggest there is hardy ever a specific intent (that's what 'incitement' implies) to do that. Well maybe by some far-right comedic oddball? Nearly all 'alternative comedy' is left wing. Maybe some of that is likely to condone hatred of specific figures. Boris say. And maybe, admittedly, there is sometimes a specific intent to do so.

And maybe also, by making a joke about rape say, you could argue it gives succour to rapists because the appalling nature of the crime has been minimalised by making it a subject for humour. The rapist then thinks - it's not all that. The rapist feels 'sanctioned' as a by-product of the joke. So the word incitement sets a very high bar. Choose a different word there and you could set a lower one.

The Edinburgh Fringe programme had about 340 pages when I was last there in 2013. About 40% of them were devoted to comedy. It grows every year so there were probably about 400 pages this year. That's 160 pages advertising comedy acts. When other advertising is taken into account there are about seven acts advertised per page maybe. So that's 1120 comedy acts then.

These acts vary greatly. But a big chunk of them will contain 'shock and awe' humour, lapped up by a young audience which the majority of us on here would probably find unacceptable. I think that young audience probably takes pleasure from laughing at something their parents might find offensive. Those acts are concentrated in Edinburgh in August and dispersed around the country and globe the rest of the time. The best ones make the 'big time'.

So my point here is that alternative comedy, with material which would offend many, is quite a 'big thing' and in no way should the views of those on here be seen as representative of the wider population.

However, I've defended things on here that have 'caused offence' with a 'nothing you wouldn't hear in a comedy club on a Saturday night' line. But as Tut correctly points out, this isn't a Frankie Boyle live gig. It's WFCFORUMS.COM. Therefore different rules should apply and Meister has gone to great lengths in explaining the fine line that he and his colleagues have to tread. I therefore retract that defence.

But don't think that Frankie Boyle is the be-all-and-end-all. There are plenty out there who make him look like a pussycat but of course only rarely 'get on the telly'. Try Jerry Sadowitz for size.

 

Interesting thread - another one this week! It seems that the international break can result in some thoughtful exchanges.

I think that most of the people who frequent this and other forums wouldn't be friends with each other in real life, where we'd just move on from those we don't really like and tend to mix with those of a similar ilk. All we share on this forum is a love of WFC (Filbert & Toffeeblue aside, but they're integrated as, dare I say, 'one of us' and are very welcome here). If we only have a love of WFC in common, it's not surprising that we disagree on virtually everything, sometimes to extremes. This is exacerbated by anonymity and the absence of tone, nuance, volume and body language in online conversations. Humour is subjective at the best of times and we all have different tolerance levels about different topics, further complicated by our mood when we go online, the time of day, whether we've had a drink or two or whatever.

Having been a mod in the past elsewhere, I often felt I couldn't pleased everyone and the abuse I got for trying to do my best led me to resign from that position. I have great respect for Hornmeister and other mods here who must feel that they are dealing with a bunch of squabbling kids half the time, particularly when it comes to humour.

However, saying all that, anyone who likes the humour of Mrs. Brown's Boys is an utter **** in my eyes because it is simply not funny. If you disagree, you can **** off because I'm right and you're not. (note the use of a winking emoji to show I don't really mean it. Or do I...?)

 

Amen to that brother.
Also anyone who doesn't like the Stranglers.

 

I'm not a 'comedic libertarian'. But have my own lines which I don't like seeing crossed. The aforementioned paedophilia and rape categories would cross it for me. As would torture. Not just the jokes but the topics too.

So here, in the spirit of debate, is a Jimmy Carr so called 'joke' (yes him of the 'shock and awe' tactic) which I find particularly offensive. And I hope the mods will understand the spirit in which it is posted. I don't find it funny in the slightest. I think it's appalling. And I can't stand the arrogant tw.t. It's short and pithy:

"What do nine out of ten people enjoy? A gang rape".

Now why does Jimmy boy feel the need to do that sort of stuff? It's not as if there's not plenty of other potential material to call on. I suspect that, in his nauseating arrogance, he simply 'get's off' on pushing the envelope and drawing a sharp intake of breath from his adoring audience who laugh guiltily despite themselves. To see what he can get away with. Sod the potential consequences. He's such a wisecracker our Jimmy. So sharp. We love him. And we're all 'comedic libertarians' here. It's a bit like snorting lines of coke at an Islington dinner party. Sod the consequences on the back streets of Hackney and in the 'favellas' of South America.

Now, I should say here, I've run this so called 'joke' past three others at length (not on here). All of them found it funny. One, who is a very good mate and of WFC, was in a face-to-face discussion. He's definitely of a 'comedic libertarian' persuasion so anything goes then. And part of the 'Saturday night crowd'. Interestingly though, when I was recently out with him at a Saturday night event, and Kelso showed up after an over-consumption of claret, he tried to physically restrain me from heckling! Not on the grounds of me potentially embarrassing myself mind (which I didn't b.t.w. - it all went very well) but, as it later materialised, on the grounds that the comedian had turned up to do his job and I should simply have let him get on with it. Wtf!

This bloke is one off the most kind-hearted, generous and supportive people that I know. Not a hint of misogyny that I've ever detected. A bit of 'boy bantz' which I share with him. And, have increasingly found down the decades, lots of women enjoy too. That 2.5 pints moment when you're at you sharpest.

The other two who found the so called 'joke' funny were online. I didn't know them personally. The three of us had a bit of a spat with me telling them why they shouldn't find it funny and them insisting that it was their 'right' to find it funny if they so wished. And, of course, they were right. But the most interesting fact around that conversation was probably that one of them was female.

So that got me thinking. Out of a sample of three then (now four) I'm 3 -1 down. So what makes me different to them? Why do they find something funny that I don't? How can they separate comedy from the real world better than me?

So I came to the conclusions that, firstly, I'm an unashamed, up-front, supporter of the female cause. But secondly, I'm what's often called a 'rescuer'. I will inevitably identify with any victim that is put in a position of powerlessness. Not because I've suffered similarly myself. But in the abstract. Which is why I put torture in my off-limits topics.

I'd suggest that I have the 'rescuer' in me in spades. I have actually done three bits of 'rescuing' in real life. But it goes further than that. I can't watch any rape or torture scene in the cinema or on the telly. I'd have to leave the room or cinema or, even better, bring on the fire alarm and sprinklers or smash up the telly.

Happy to be a 'rescuer'.

 

Cley
I went to see Jimmy Carr live at Watford about 3 years ago. I find him very funny and clever on TV. It was terribly disappointing. I expected him to be really funny but ruder than on TV. He was just crude, nothing else. Not funny but poor taste, simply unfunny and poor taste. As you say above, why does a naturally funny guy like him feel the need to simply replace the humour with filth ? The filth alone is not funny.
ps have you got too much time on your hands at the moment ? Your posts are getting ultra long. I can't remember the last time I got to the end of one .

 

Comedy? I thought Mrs Brown's Boys was a fly-on-the-wall documentary!

 

Time rich currently. There's no accounting for 'attention deficit syndrome' . I tend to post either in the middle of the night when I can't sleep and time seems to be endless or mid-afternoon when I've 'become more active'. Possibly reptilian.

If you can't handle the 'length of epistle' then I'd suggest you park the second half and come back to it later. You obviously got halfway through the last one to 'Jimmy Carr'.

Often at the start of a thread, particularly one I've instigated myself, there'll be a few things I need to 'get off my chest'. Then I'll settle down.

My perception so far on this thread is that we could be in for some sort of 'longest average post ever' award. Only ZZT has left us down with a hopelessly minimalist offering.

 

As I was the one that initially posted the aforementioned, there was zero intention or thought of me wanting to demean the mentally ill or make light of any one of us going through our real day to day life struggles whilst I was typing it. I posted a website link of the first one that came to mind, a well known organisation that people talk to in times of crisis & that is all that was meant by it & nothing else.

It was aimed at the continuous postings of a few that looked like they were enjoying the attention in terms of 'wallowing in relegation grief' just 8 games into a 38 game season. Funny at first but not 15/20+ posts of impending doom & then you notice that same panic setting in with others. If I had posted a link to the 'Salvation Army website' I doubt it would have got the response it did. Or maybe I'm wrong to assume that in this hypersensitive age of ours?

Whether mildly humorous or not, it was a point being made purely in football terms & nothing else implied.

I hoped the rational could see that in the context in which it was made or at least given me benefit of the doubt. There were no questions asking for me to clarify for example but I was immediately lambasted of being insensitive to people who are struggling with mental health issues, which is a dangerously big leap to make IMO.

I doubt Moog can read this because he blocked me because of it, which is a shame, but I think that alone can demonstrate how we can sometimes determine our own minds & judge too quickly on any information we process on social media platforms. I guess that's the way our minds have now been wired to cope with all the senseless information we are receiving. I have a feeling social media could be exacerbating this problem of mental health issues amongst us.

 

There's a marked difference between making fun of the mentally ill and making fun of people who you believe to be overreacting.

I think you're quite right here. I've seen some unbelievably eye raising interpretations of the most innocuous comments before. Some people are simply prone to injecting their own biases into responses (although I do think we all do this from time to time), most particularly those who have a tendency to pick fights with individuals.

 

indeed. Just lost the 'longest average post' award.

 

Didn't see any malice in the post

 

It was a naive post at best. If you are upset by a number of posters believing that we are likely to be relegated, then don't read a thread with such a title, or post a compelling contra argument. But don't suggest they need to call the Samaritans. I happen to believe that anyone who doesn't see that we are in serious trouble, and seems to need to keep telling themselves that everything will be fine, is not very intelligent or can't cope with the thought of relegation. But I'd never say that . No one on that thread was enjoying our predicament.

 

Why do you still feel the need to inflate the matter further, you gave all your interpretations & opinions already & still repeating the same nonsense & trying to suggest to me what I should or shouldn't do, especially after reading the explanation I gave.

Also, not a great idea suggesting people might not be 'very intelligent' just because the position they hold might differ from yours. I see that trait worse than what you are accusing me of TBH.

Anyway, sounds like you are on some odd sort of power trip Mr TuT.

 

My advice here would be to 'stop digging'. I agree it wasn't a big deal. Only you and wfcmoog decided that it should be. I agree it didn't warrant the excitement it generated. Only you and wfcmoog made sure that it did. "On another day I wouldn't even have bothered to post that I felt it wasn't in great taste". Well why are you doing so again now then? As far as I'm aware Monday and Friday are different days. As for the new thread? Well it seems to have generated a reasonable amount of traction. Why was it a naive post at best? I thought it was pithy and appropriate. It only seemed to have angered you and wfcmoog. Why was Hornet4ever upset? He simply offered a witty and contrary response to the naysayers and has just offered a very full and fair explanation of his post.

I suggest you now leave it alone rather than continuing to mount a hopeless and subjective attempt at 'control freakery' when the majority would appear to be ranged against you.

 

I'm doing it purely because of the pathetic attempts to justify that it was fine to make the original post. As you point out in your original post, you and H4E held the minority view on that thread but you couldn't accept that so started a whole new thread to debate the whole point again. I'm not the one who needs to stop digging my friend. It was a poor taste post that should not have been made but shouldn't have attracted the level of on going debate it did, let alone a whole new thread. A thread in which you and H4E have basically attempted to justify that the original post was ok and others, who responded or liked the critical responses, were overreacting. Hope that helps. Shall we move on now ?

 

I like your posts, but you think I am "not very intelligent or cannot cope..." and I feel offended.

Now where is the Samaritans number?

 

On a more serious note, having a positive mindset about something like football, just has to be better for our mental well-being.

If we presume that football is so important (and of course it isn't) and we get relegated, then with your attitude, you'll be depressed all season, whereas I'll only be depressed right at the end, until I start getting excited about winning promotion in the following season, the day after.

 

We’re all different and have different mindsets of course. I like to think I’m fairly objective and don’t take an over optimistic view of our team’s prospects just because I want us to win like some seem to. This means that I either accept the negatives well before they happen or have a lovely surprise when the worst doesn’t happen ! I often wonder whether those who seem to be overly optimistic are simply that way as they can’t handle the mental anguish that defeat or relegation might bring (not directed at you !). Obviously being optimistic, objective or pessimistic doesn’t in its self determine whether someone gets genuinely “depressed” about football failure, whether it’s anticipated or not. Personally defeat or even relegation disappoints me but the lows when things don’t go our way are a tiny fraction of the highs when they do. Enjoying following a football team is all about enjoying every minute of success and recognising how unimportant football is when things are bad. Just being in the prem at all is a success for a club of our size.

 

Jeez. Nobody has made any 'pathetic' attempts to justify anything. The justifications have been perfectly robust. I.m.h.o., it was and remains fine to have made the original post. Just because you and wfcmoog didn't like it so what? You didn't have to. You were perfectly at liberty to say so too, which you did. But you went further. You said it was irresponsible for Hornet4ever to have posted it in the first place. What gives you the right to be judge and jury over what another member of this forum should or shouldn't post? You're not a mod. Although the mods no doubt took your side on this occasion as a line of least resistance bending the knee to the most easily offended. Which happens all the time everywhere and is a pity. What gives you the right to be a 'self-appointed arbiter of taste'?

Then you go further again and criticise me for initiating this thread. Well I'll initiate any thread I damn well like ta. Other contributors have enjoyed it. I didn't require your sanction to do so and won't be seeking it any time soon. 'Control freakery' at its finest.

Anyway, this thread wasn't intended to be only about your issues with the 'Samaritans post'. That was merely used as an example to get the ball rolling around a more general discussion of what's acceptable and what isn't to individuals in respect of humour. Any objective reading of the thread thus far should indicate to you that it's achieved its purpose.

As for who's in the majority, well I'd say it's pretty clear on this thread who is. As for the original, harder to say. You two may have got four 'likes' but I'd suggest that the majority of posters who didn't get involved at all weren't particularly offended.

Finally, your entreaty to 'move on now'. Sounds like you're demanding the last word to me. Which smacks of 'control freakery' again. Jury's out. Let's see.

* Naivety. Can be defined as anyone turning up at a Jimmy Carr gig not knowing what they'll be letting themselves in for.

 

**** me, you lot need to go join a debating society or something

 

imho this joke whilst it's a nasty horrible subject, isn't insulting the victim of the rape as they are not the focus of the humour. The humour is in the shock of the answer being completely different to what is expected.

If it's jokingly suggested someone is mentally ill because of a trivial issue and they should "go seek help" imho that crosses the line into insulting people who might suffer with metal issues.

Fine line but for me and I personally don't like either joke, but that's the difference, which to be frank, would be born out by the numbers of reports each joke would get from members. Generally the good people on here have a decent sense of what is and is not acceptable and mod decisions are more often than not just following the wishes of the majority.

 

This is a debating society!

 

As always with your longer posts the facts, contexts, insinuations, interpretations are all changed just a little to support your point. This time I can't be bothered to address and correct them all.
Again I'll ask the question, rather than "demanding the last word", shall we move on now ? Feel free to have the last word .

 

Very interesting. So you're suggesting that had I posted the Jimmy Carr joke as something I genuinely found funny (say on a Jokes thread), rather than as an example of something I didn't but up for discussion, then you'd have received less complaints around that than you did over the 'Samaritans' post?

I find that staggering. So maybe my 'identifying with victims' is quite unusual then. Or, might that differential only exist because these forums are almost exclusively male? I know of only three active female members.

 

I have both sets of reproductive organs so does that make it 3.5 ?

 

Yes. This isn't the last word. It's a dead heat.

 

Possibly. As I stated it's my opinion. The Jimmy Carr joke hasn't had any complaints yet. Just trying to explain why two objectionable joke, might be treated differently and there's a lot more female members on here than people think.

 

Yes.

 

....and just to emphasise the point, for example, last Spring a lot of "optimists" were debating whether a 7th place finish was more important than a cup final. I didn't think we'd get 7th place as I saw no reason for us to beat a Soton team battling relegation, arsenal, chelsea and WHU. I also objectively pointed out it was far more likely we'd get thrashed in the cup final than actually win it. So when we failed to get 7th and lost the final 6-0 it wasn't unexpected for me and happily I pointed out that 11th and a cup final appearance would probably be a high water mark for us for many years to come. However the optimists on the forum were distraught at the failure to qualify for Europe or run City close.

I objectively think we will probably be relegated this season after this start as I struggle to see where 10 or 11 wins will come from given we are 1/4 to 1/5 of the way through the season and our form is a continuation of last season. However there is still hope and I hope my objective view is wrong. I'm not depressed .