[pengu]

Originally Posted by forno

Just the other day the front page of Melbournes biggest selling paper, The Dirty Document was all about the expletives used by one coach to another. It saddens me to think this is more important to most of Melbournes news paper readers than news that will affect our lifes and many others, rather than the antics of a coach to a team of cashed up yobs that kick a pig skin around for a job.

I hear ya.

I never did understand the appeal of watching overpaid numbskulls play aerial ping pong. And that people need to see this shit on the front page of the paper is ridiculous.

[Silver]

Originally Posted by Geoff3DMN

You don't believe that certain subjects should NEVER EVER be the subject of humor?

Because I do... and I'd put children dying from cancer and Nazi death camps up near the top of that list.

Some things are sacrosanct (and no not in the religious sense of the word).

I disagree. It isn't safe for any idea to be considered 'above criticism' and humour is one way to criticise and bring attention to poor form. I agree that in certain situations some jokes could be in bad taste, but there is nothing that is sacred. Being able to say what you like is important. No one has the right to not be offended, but you can choose to not listen to what people who offend you have to say.

To say otherwise opens the door to censorship, and gives archaic ideas, like the Catholic Church's stance on birth control, false legitimacy. Continuously questioning ideas is what drives social progress and a better world.

[Geoff3DMN]

Originally Posted by Silver

Being able to say what you like is important. No one has the right to not be offended, but you can choose to not listen to what people who offend you have to say.

I never said that one didn't have the right to say what one likes to say (or to imply that censorship is either needed or desirable).

But the right to free speech isn't an unlimited one (in this country at least) and the line at which free speech applies or does not apply is somewhat grey.

I have seen people on these forums call upon other people to stop using the term Gay or Ghey in a pejorative manner (and so they should be called on it IMO).

I have seen people call upon other people to stop making comments that are racist or incite violence (because people can be hurt).

Freedom of speech is a somewhat limited right and does not give one person the right to unjustly harm or hurt another.

By belittling the experiences of those who suffer (or suffered) one can cause pain and emotional suffering, do you honestly think it is really worth that for a cheap one shot joke?

[dolbinau]

I don't see what is wrong with the chaser joke for example...the only way I think it could offend is if people think:

1. Because it's meant to be funny, it means that people/they don't understand the significance of Children with cancer (which is not the case)

2. It undermines/trivialises their suffering (which is also not the case)

In fact, the thing about the Chaser joke was that they were saying the Foundations were trivialising the deaths...(which was the whole point of the skit).

These cases (including Sandilands) are using these 'sensitive' subjects as a vehicle to be funny not as the 'subject' to be funny.

E.g. blatantly obvious offensive joke:

What's funnier than a dead baby

A dead baby in a clown costume.

The difference here is that the dead baby is the subject of the joke, which some would find offensive.

Say for Holocaust:

What's the difference between a pizza and a jew

a pizza doesn't scream when you put it in the oven.

The Holocaust/Jew are the subject of the joke, and in this case I think it is offensive because it makes Jews seem trivial since they are compared to a pizza..and almost like 'screaming when you put it in the oven' to be a bad thing.

This is what I'd distinguish the difference between this humour, and the way cases like Sandilands and the chasers have used.

Sandilands does not imply anything other than in concentration camps, people starve.

This post is a bit convoluted, but yeah.

[entropy]

Originally Posted by tommysvr

I partly agree, and would probably let it slide if it was anyone other than Sandliands. But he is a wanker of the highest order and I would like anything to get him off the airways/out of Australian society.

Heh, heh, Basic darwinian behaviour. The Sandibeast has been weakened, and the carnivores and scavengers move in for the kill.

Not that I have ever listened to him or that skank that apparently occupies the perch on the other side of the console. I gave up on FM radio a decade ago, and have no intention of going back. Even JJJ is chock full of tenured, middle aged gits pretending to be young and hip. At some point it becomes just, well, sad.

Radio in general hasn't been the same since the man with the golden microphone retired and my crystal radio stopped working. Those were the good old days.

[entropy]

Oh, and I effin refuse to have anything to do with myspace, twitter or facebook and no I will not be your friend. Probably some drug dealer or nigerian scam artist.

edit: Or even my mother in law

[Geoff3DMN]

Originally Posted by dolbinau

I don't see what is wrong with the chaser joke for example...

Is the fact that a number of sick children did not understand that the Chaser were not in fact poking fun at them, and in fact thought they were.

An adult may have been able to make that distinction, they were not.

[dolbinau]

That's also a good point.

[Silver]

Originally Posted by Geoff3DMN

By belittling the experiences of those who suffer (or suffered) one can cause pain and emotional suffering, do you honestly think it is really worth that for a cheap one shot joke?

What got a rise out of me was the idea of 'sacrosanct ideas'. I think it is incredibly dangerous to have that notion about anything. There are valid points to be raised about many 'sensitive' issues.

Is a child dying of cancer in the first world more valuable than a child dying of malnutrition in the third world? Which is more preventable? Which gets the most funding? Isn't that something that's worth bringing attention to?

The Holocaust is also a sensitive issue, but it doesn't give Jews or Israel a free pass to do whatever they want.

The limits I see on free speech are that it shouldn't bring material harm to others and politeness. Insider trading, libel, and shouting fire in a crowded room are examples of the former. Making jokes about a particular dying kid in front of his parents is insensitive and is covered by the later. To be clear though, I only see the former as a criminal offense. The latter merely makes you a jackass.

[forno]

On a different tack, but still cranky old man theme.

WTF do people want it all, even when they dont know what they are talking about?

Regarding the new Nano.
Me: did you see the new iPod nano now has a camera & FM radio?
Killjoy: I really hate that! Apples marketing is so aggresive, now I will have to replace the kids iPod, instead of them being happy with any other mp3 player. Why the hell did it take so long to put a radio in there?
Me: Not sure, apple have previously said that mobile FM isnt up to their klevel of user experience, not sure why they have done it now, perhaps new technology has made it better.
Killjoy: This is why I have a non apple mp3 player!
Me: Yes and the radios are shit, I used to have one and you would be constantly moving the unit or the headphone cord.
Killjoy: Yes it depends on what staion.

So you have an mp3 player and an iPhone, yet you wonder why your child wants an iPod over another mp3 player.

And tell your child to save for a new Nano or wait until it needs to be replaced!

[Abaddon]

Bread and Circuses - getting people to focus on the trivial rather than the important has been happening for a looooooong time.

[kevinnugent]

Originally Posted by Abaddon

Bread and Circuses - getting people to focus on the trivial rather than the important has been happening for a looooooong time.

Yes, that's an interesting point. I wonder if anyone can pinpoint when it started here? I am sure it wasn't around when I was growing up. Around the Vietnam War era?

[incanspyder]

Originally Posted by bartron

a) Sandilands is a fuckwit....he reminds me of a friend I used to have. He was a fuckwit too.

I have no problems with Kyle, but then again I may be similar to your fuckwit friend. That said, I think Kyle's a tool. I mean, sure, you're a gimmicky little shit who gets paid for "having" (read: pretending to have) your faux-bad mouth, but people can't honestly be that stupid as to innocently make a concentration camp joke. Now I have no problems with either the joke or hearing about it, it was relatively quite mild, but I mean, if you're on probation, Im sure even my pet monkey would realise to keep your trap shut. No problem with the Chaser joke either. Anyone having a problem should stop being so PC and harden the fuck up. I mean, it's only humorous talk. If people were prosecuted for their thoughts or jokes it would be an annoying world we live in. And no, hate crimes don't fall under this category.

PS. hahaha I love this thread. It's like watching women bitch, except smarter.

[incanspyder]

Originally Posted by entropy

Oh, and I effin refuse to have anything to do with myspace, twitter or facebook and no I will not be your friend. Probably some drug dealer or nigerian scam artist.

edit: Or even my mother in law

[kevinnugent]

I also have a minor problem with the current stupidity levels of people too. For an example, nineMSN are having a vote and the question is: Should the Government scrap plans for Internet censorship? People voting yes: 17,339 People voting no: 13,370 wtf?

That tells me there are a LOT of people out there who don't know anything about the Internet and/or Civil Rights. I can't believe 43% of people would gladly allow the Government (any government) to censor the information that's available.

[Lutze]

Originally Posted by kevinnugent

I also have a minor problem with the current stupidity levels of people too. For an example, nineMSN are having a vote and the question is: Should the Government scrap plans for Internet censorship? People voting yes: 17,339 People voting no: 13,370 wtf?

That tells me there are a LOT of people out there who don't know anything about the Internet and/or Civil Rights. I can't believe 43% of people would gladly allow the Government (any government) to censor the information that's available.

The people voting yes are the same morons that don't supervise their kids while they are on the net. That's why they vote yes... because Mr.Government Net Nanny is there to do it for them.

Makes me sick. If kids are on the net unsupervised then it's like sending a 5 year old out to Canberra to go and buy some mucky mags.

The kids should be taken off them and housed with Madonna

[incanspyder]

Originally Posted by Lutze

The people voting yes are the same morons that don't supervise their kids while they are on the net. That's why they vote yes... because Mr.Government Net Nanny is there to do it for them.

Makes me sick. If kids are on the net unsupervised then it's like sending a 5 year old out to Canberra to go and buy some mucky mags.

The kids should be taken off them and housed with Madonna

Yeah, don't get me fucking started on the internet censorship plan.

[kevinnugent]

At least with Kevin and Wayne's NBN plan you will be able to see nothing at lightning speeds!!

[Lutze]

Originally Posted by kevinnugent

At least with Kevin and Wayne's NBN plan you will be able to see nothing at lightning speeds!!

I don't think we can blame Swannie and Rudd.. I think that this was a populist thing - much like (C)howards firewall shiteware that they produced.

Stupid bogan parents who don't give a rats ass will vote for those that will do their job for them.

The censorshit thing is technically useless and the tech world knows it... but lets keep that quiet from Ma and Pa Bogan, okay?

[Silver]

Originally Posted by kevinnugent

I also have a minor problem with the current stupidity levels of people too. For an example, nineMSN are having a vote and the question is: Should the Government scrap plans for Internet censorship? People voting yes: 17,339 People voting no: 13,370 wtf?

I think that it is the wording of the question that is to blame. The correct answer is 'Yes', but the wording of the question could lead many to think it is 'No', as Lutze just demonstrated.

Regardless, Internet polls have no credibility. They aren't scientific, aren't reflective of mood, and are easy to manipulate.