Zimmerman Martin Case

Depends what you say I guess. If I said most of the music at gay clubs I've been to made me want to perforate my eardrums with a fork I don't think anyone would mind too much.



Saying someone wearing a hoody could be seen suspiciously is bad but saying someone wearing a trench coat should be shot isn't?


Depends on the context. In this thread it's misjudged, but for instance Dean saying when he's emporer of the world all people who've chopped a melon on someone's stomach with a sword will die goes by without mention. We joke about killing people all the time.

But the big difference was that one was a misjudged joke, the other was a serious view being expressed.


This isn't a jab at you personally but Johnno gets to be defended for being ignorant of hate attacks against goths and emos but Obewan didn't get a pass for having a serious personal experience that may have coloured his view slightly? That seems unreasonable to
say the least.

Come on, you're arguing as if Johnno literally meant he wanted to murder people in cold blood. And Obewan said he was happy for his views (real ones, not joke ones) to be challenged. Not the same deal at all, as far as I'm concerned.

 

In a way I can see Southpaw's point. Over the last century we have finally come to the belief that we can't pick on minorities especially in regard to race and increasingly gender. We go on about how everybody should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, sexuality etc. We understand that making jokes about mentally handicapped people is hurtful, yet for some reason it's still ok to make fun of emo's, goths, gingers, blonds etc. Somehow we don't see this as being hurtful to those people, "we just joking" they say, and it's not like these people don't feel ostracised enough. As Mitlov said people do get beaten for being "different" and until people realise making jokes about them is hurtful, just as gay jokes are, people are going to continue to ostracise them leading to depression and more frequently than should be suicide. If we are going to go on about equality and a fair society then we need to make sure that covers everybody and not just the "big" groups. JMHO.

And yeah I'm guilty for joking about emo's and goth's as anyone

 

Doesn't it come down to familiarity?

I've had/got goth friends, I've gothed-up to go on nights out with them, I've had idiots shout stuff at me. I feel that makes it ok for me to joke about them.

I've never been to Watts, L.A., I don't know what it's like for people there, or what they go through outside of media representations. So it's not ok for me to joke about them.

I wouldn't joke about Islam, because I don't know enough about it. But I feel fine joking about Christianity, because I grew up with it. Just like I wouldn't ridicule Pashtun culture, but I would ridicule middle-England.

Of course, this is in public, I'm rarely bothered by the content of any joke when there's no-one around to be offended by it, and judge them on their merits of humorous content, construction and delivery.

I basically reckon:

Familiarity, affection and joshing = ok (even though it may still touch a nerve with some people)

Xenophobia, suspicion and bigotry = not ok

 

I think if you go back and read my last post you will see that I said "multi racial" gangsta rap culture...

 

When it's with your friends who's reactions you know well and no one else that is one thing, but in public does the fact you're familiar with the subject mean that people won't feel hurt and depressed by their characteristics being the butt of jokes?

 

It just depends on how cruel the jokes are, doesn't it?

What if I joke about my receding hairline? Is that offensive to bald people? Where do you draw the line?

I remember hearing a female Muslim stand-up doing a routine about getting groped during her hajj in Mecca, and subsequently finding out that it is not an uncommon experience for women. Many Muslims were offended by it. Should she have been censored?

Should "Jerry Springer The Opera" have been officially banned for upsetting Christians? Was the banning of Monty Python's "Life of Brian" the correct thing to do?

 

None of the above she be banned. I am Scottish/Irish and catholic, i'm sure you could imagine the jokes and insults that have been slung at me in my time and sometimes they are hurtfull but i would never suggest censor.

It is a free society and people must use tact and a bit of class/common sense when conversing/joking with or about other people. Although i could do without English people trying to pull off a really dodgy scottish accent - unless they are good that is.

On a side note i have noticed the use of the word "minority" or to pluralise "minorities" - maybe it's just me and although in my culture we are aware of the word but never use it. I actually find that particular word to be quite degrading to the ethnicity of the epeople it tries to portray.

Baza

 

One thing I'd like to point out is that over the last 50 years people have become much more acceptive of differences in race, beliefs, cultures, and sexual orientation. And even though we still have a long way to go (if we ever get there) to a world without bias, I do think that accepting and realizing that you may be deviating from the mainstream, you should recognize that people are going to look at you with a query, it's just human nature I suppose.

 

I know a few "alternative" types who would be rather disappointed if no-one thought they were weird, or stopped getting double-takes walking down the street.

 

In that post, but not in a few others.

I think OwlMatt and Mitlov pretty much nailed it in terms of response, so there's no point going over it again.

You did say some cool stuff too, BTW. I, in know way, want you painted out as some kind of villain. I also think it's cool the way you've taken other's opinions and criticisms on board.

 

Thanks David, I don't mind criticisms that's how we learn.

 

To be honest I do think there is a huge difference between judging somewhat for an inherent or ingrained trait (and yes, I do include religious status as ingrained) and judging them for the 'look' they've chosen to portray.

The reason there's a difference is, very simply, that it is a choice that they have made to appear that way. Someone dressing as a goth is choosing to represent a certain subculture, with a certain vague stereotype - thus making the choice to deliberately associate themselves with that stereotype. Same with punks, businessmen, chavs, bankers, yuppies, furries, cosplayers, and any other subculture you could choose to name where the uniform is optional.

That doesn't mean they should be judged as bad people, but for example I share very few interests with the general 'emo' stereotype, so would not seek them out for conversation and might actively avoid it in the same way I'd avoid someone wearing a football shirt.

 

Somewhat agree.

If someone desires a certain appearance, surely they know first hand on how they will be stereotyped-casted.

After all, it is what "lured-impressed" it upon them in the first place

This is like canines. People desire pitbiulls, and it isn't to play frisbee toss with

There are some "truths" behind stereotypes.

If the shoe fits.....but upon accepting shoe, there will be some uncomfortable miss-judgments

 

The purpose of someone dressing in a certain way is not for you to associate them with a stereotype. They're doing it for their own reasons that likely are unconnected with that stereotype. And they likely dislike that everyone associates that stereotype with them.

Young women generaly don't wear black-and-red velvet because they're desperately hoping you assume they write bad poetry, smoke cloves, and cut themselves. They do it because they like how those clothes look on them.

Cosplayers don't dress up as characters from their favorite sci-fi/fantasy/comic because they hope you think they're socially-awkward losers who live in their parents basement. They do it because they enjoy doing it and have fun doing so.

 

I can agree with both this post and MM's. The problem is this... if on the news you see pictures of people who are criminals or are wanted for a crime, they might be wearing a hoodie and a pair of pants down to their knees. You see enough of this and it becomes association. The same way many people now link pit bulls to be vicious dogs simply because that is the only dog that makes the headlines, all other dogs attacks are often ignored. If anyone is responsible for this generalization it's the media.

 

Exactly!!!

The media stirs up a lot of it.

In turn, the general public believes the media without scrutiny

I have a few friends from India.

One buddy, at one time in his life, had his beard growing out and while going into a tall office building, we were stopped, and on two occasions, he (not me) was asked where was he from.

He had the appearance of a terroist profile

When they found out he was from India, they asked if he liked hot-peppery food and that he shouldn't eat beef. Which, BTW, his faith from India, they could eat beef.

Hence the profile and sterotyping

 

It#s a bit 'chicken and egg' really. If there are lots of chavs walking around with pitbulls then the pitbulls are going to get a bad rep even if they didn't chew little kids faces off. Fact is that there are no doubt plenty of well-raised pitbulls that are fine around kids. But it only takes either a few instances of attacks on kids (which are bound to make the headlines, you can't blame the media for that) or else enough people to see them being kept by chavs, and hey presto the breed's got a bad rep.

 

i see what he's saying. I don't tell "blond jokes" for kind of that reason.