So, Jimmy Carr;

[Swervin_Mervin]

When you break down the components of the joke, he is quite close to it being a good joke, because he's nearly mocking the stereotypical negative judgments made about that particular ethinc group, rather than the ethnic group themselves. However, he misses the mark IMO and it falls on the wrong side of the fence and therefore could be seen as perpetuating prejudices. Ricky Gervais is a good example of someone who is generally very good at mocking people, without victimising them.

I think that's my take on it as well. I can see what he was trying to achieve, but he missed the mark and for me doesn't work, and as you say it falls foul imo.

DJ, those that suffered in the Holocaust are not the butt of the joke. They are the subject. The target(s) are those who would think such a thing as being a positive.

[Gwaredd]

Obviously it was an over simplification.

We joke about witches being burnt at the stake. Is that any different for their families? The only difference is time and quantity.

Heck, it looks like I'm defending the holocaust jokes. I'm not. I'm just saying I'm not bothered if you laugh at his joke that skirts around it or not.

[dinny_g]

These kinds of threads are always funny because you can tell the people who don’t like to think they might have shitty opinions like “everyone hates gypsies” by how quickly they rush out to defend the shitty joke.

Just because you happen to agree with the prejudice doesn’t mean that the joke is fine.

For what it’s worth, I’m not defending the joke, just the freedom to tell it. Same goes for Frankie Boyle or Jim Davidson or Chubby Brown.

You have the freedom to not listen or not watch and you have the freedom to be offended and to express your offence. But no one ever got leprosy from being offended (tm. Steve Hughes)

[DeskJockey]

Watched the clip. What a f*cking spanner. That's not a joke about the people who find jokes about Holocaust funny, unless he's somehow outing his audience and not explaining it. It is making a joke about Holocaust victims.

Appreciate my educational background is different to most of yours, but we were taught about the other victims too. Don't know what the mainstream curriculum covers here, but if they're not part of the story then that's a wrong that needs righting, but not in that way. Great if it prompted some to go read about it, but how many do you think did?

From what I just saw the concern and anger is justified. He is belittling the victims of genocide and making them the joke. How else would you interpret the "positives" bit or the segment about Jehovah's Witnesses? He's using their ethnicity or practice of faith to attempt to be funny. And the showers part is totally unacceptable.

Is he allowed to say it? Yes. Should it have consequences? I think so. Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of your speech.

[ZedLeg]

DJ is correct

[Rich B]

What should the consequences be?

[DeskJockey]

What should the consequences be?

Good question. I suspect he's smart enough to ensure he doesn't fall foul of the law, so there's possibly no case to be made there.

However, I would like to think that people would look at what he's saying and decide not to go to his shows, buy his content, watch his programmes and so on.

Or that the channels his shows are in deciding to drop him.

[RobYob]

I didn't know JW's were victims of the holocaust so I've learned something thanks Jimmy.

If I laughed does that make me a horribly flawed and prejudiced individual? Probably.

[Rich B]

What should the consequences be?

Good question. I suspect he's smart enough to ensure he doesn't fall foul of the law, so there's possibly no case to be made there.

However, I would like to think that people would look at what he's saying and decide not to go to his shows, buy his content, watch his programmes and so on.

Or that the channels his shows are in deciding to drop him.

I imagine lots of people choose not to watch him - those consequences are in action.

But do you really want laws against jokes? Who decides what constitutes a legal joke or not?

[DeskJockey]

I want (and there already exist) laws against hate speech. I think he's very close to that, but I'm not sure he's over the line. That's for the authorities to decide, assuming they've got time/reason to investigate.

I don't care how he communicates his material, by semaphore if that's his thing, I care about him (and others) not making fun of tragedy. What do you think the reception would have been if he'd joked about lynchings or child abuse?

[mik]

He’s “softened” a little over the last few years with all his TV hosting stuff, but he hasn’t exactly been known as a “safe” commedian.

For example : “statistically speaking, 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape”. I laughed heartily when I heard that - it’s clever. If I thought that meant anyone believed I approve of rape in any form I’d be horrified. And I didn’t think it meant he condoned that either.

[ZedLeg]

See I’ve just never liked that type of comedy. Rape jokes aren’t great in the first place but to tell a joke like that where the victim is the butt of the joke is just nasty imo.

Same with the gypsy joke, holocaust jokes aren’t my cup of tea at the best of times but to make one where victims are the punchline is grim.

[RobYob]

I would contend there is no "butt" of these jokes. The comedy comes from the internal clash of your own feelings. Gangrape joke is "funny" because the rational part of brain goes "Oh yeah, that's valid information" a heartbeat later the rest of it runs screaming in horror at the callousness of what you've just absorbed and you laugh at your brain doing a backflip. That you can have both a rational and empathic responses to a bit of information is not "wrong". Maybe someone with a degree in psychology can put it better.

[Rich B]

See I’ve just never liked that type of comedy. Rape jokes aren’t great in the first place but to tell a joke like that where the victim is the butt of the joke is just nasty imo.

Same with the gypsy joke, holocaust jokes aren’t my cup of tea at the best of times but to make one where victims are the punchline is grim.

What are you doing watching to a Jimmy Carr stand up routine then? It's not as though Mary Berry unexpectedly came out with it half way through an episode of Bake Off!

[ZedLeg]

I don’t

[Swervin_Mervin]

See I’ve just never liked that type of comedy. Rape jokes aren’t great in the first place but to tell a joke like that where the victim is the butt of the joke is just nasty imo.

Same with the gypsy joke, holocaust jokes aren’t my cup of tea at the best of times but to make one where victims are the punchline is grim.

They are not the butt of the jokes.

[ZedLeg]

I guess it depends on how you interpret it, like I say I’m not big on that kind of humour in the first place.

[Ascender]

But when you go to a standup show, is there not some sort of unwritten agreement you enter-into where all concerned understands that at the end of the day they are just "jokes" which don't reflect any prejudice or feelings of the person telling them or those laughing at them? So that's the context in which they're told and when you take them out of that environment, they can become something else - almost a representation of what that comedian stands for? Jimmy Carr's routine is very quick-fire for the most part - its not like he does a 30 minute part about The Holocaust. He and Ricky Gervais do tread a similar line at times and seem to take great delight in doing so, but they do seem to put some craft in to the joke and play on stereotypes and prejudices which do make you find some of their stuff funny whilst also looking at yourself and society's views/mistakes etc.

Its not like some of those other comedians name-checked who would just trot out racial slurs for cheap laughs. Even Frankie Boyle went through a very lazy phase where he was just saying "offensive stuff" and couldn't even be bothered to put a joke around it. I don't think the audience for Carr or Gervais are going there to hear him rant about different minorities because that's what they like and see it as some sort of rally for like-minded people which is where I think there's a line that isn't crossed in to hate speech territory.

Or maybe I'm deluded and we'll look back on this in 5-10 years time and see this sort of stuff in the same light as those comics from the 70s and 80s.

[240PP]

Even Frankie Boyle went through a very lazy phase where he was just saying "offensive stuff" and couldn't even be bothered to put a joke around it.

I’ve not seen loads of Frankie Boyle but enough to form the opinion he’s a nasty fucker who says stuff to get easy laughs or shock. Katie Price’s disabled son being one target.

But here he is hand-wringing over Clarkson and saying he should be sacked.

[DeskJockey]

I don't think the issue is whether he believes in what he's saying, but that they're not "just jokes". Where would you draw the line or would there be no line at all?