Funny or just offensive?
-
A Tetris game about refugees in boats. Funny or just plain stupid and offensive? Migration Madness - PI-Games.com[^]
Bjorn
-
A Tetris game about refugees in boats. Funny or just plain stupid and offensive? Migration Madness - PI-Games.com[^]
Bjorn
Puerile?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
A Tetris game about refugees in boats. Funny or just plain stupid and offensive? Migration Madness - PI-Games.com[^]
Bjorn
Both. How many jews fit in a cell? No, those are humans. Doesn't add anything to the original idea, is just surfing on the suffering of other people. Put the elephanting idiot between the victims and let him demonstrate his game.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
A Tetris game about refugees in boats. Funny or just plain stupid and offensive? Migration Madness - PI-Games.com[^]
Bjorn
Why don't you tell us what you think?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Why don't you tell us what you think?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I think it's hilarious, but I have a very twisted sense of humor. I think the average person finds it in bad taste and offensive. How about you?
Bjorn
When I think of how these people have hopes and aspirations and are having to leave their home countries to try and find something of a future - I can only come to the conclusion that the person(s) who created the game did not have empathy, with migrants, when they created it. So I don't find it funny but perhaps more in the realm of stupid.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
When I think of how these people have hopes and aspirations and are having to leave their home countries to try and find something of a future - I can only come to the conclusion that the person(s) who created the game did not have empathy, with migrants, when they created it. So I don't find it funny but perhaps more in the realm of stupid.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
I think humor comes from pain, and seeing something funny in an atrocity is a way to cope emotionally. Doesn't necessarily mean that one is lacking empathy. I think jokes about the Holocaust can be funny too, even though it was a great evil. To me there is basically no limit to what can be joked about.
Bjorn
-
I think humor comes from pain, and seeing something funny in an atrocity is a way to cope emotionally. Doesn't necessarily mean that one is lacking empathy. I think jokes about the Holocaust can be funny too, even though it was a great evil. To me there is basically no limit to what can be joked about.
Bjorn
No, there is no limit to what can be joked about but there is a limit as to who can joke about it. I have no problem at all with survivors of the Holocaust or people directly affected by it joking about it. Gallows humour is just fine from those who are in the shadow if the gibbet. When people completely outside the situation make jokes about it, however, it is nearly always laughing at and not laughing with, a particularly callous kind of cruelty. Mockery has its place in the pricking of hubris by politicians, and celebrities, and sports stars. It should never be directed at those whose plight is not of their own choosing or upon whom suffering has been imposed by things beyond their control. This website appears to be unaware of that necessary distinction. It would be far better employed taking the piss out of those driving the refugees out of their own countries and those determined to halt their flight than those already sufficiently dispossessed of their dignity.
-
No, there is no limit to what can be joked about but there is a limit as to who can joke about it. I have no problem at all with survivors of the Holocaust or people directly affected by it joking about it. Gallows humour is just fine from those who are in the shadow if the gibbet. When people completely outside the situation make jokes about it, however, it is nearly always laughing at and not laughing with, a particularly callous kind of cruelty. Mockery has its place in the pricking of hubris by politicians, and celebrities, and sports stars. It should never be directed at those whose plight is not of their own choosing or upon whom suffering has been imposed by things beyond their control. This website appears to be unaware of that necessary distinction. It would be far better employed taking the piss out of those driving the refugees out of their own countries and those determined to halt their flight than those already sufficiently dispossessed of their dignity.
I agree that what you are describing is the current standard in society. But why? I can watch a comedian like Lisa Lampanelli tell crude racial jokes, and still think it is perfectly ok. If she makes fun of my group, it is even funnier. If her jokes hit a soft spot in me, I don't feel the need to get upset, I just laugh it off. Many people get out of their way to get offended, as if they want to be offended. This seems to be the trend now. Microaggressions on campus. Religious sensitivities. Black lives matter. Feminism. Political correctness. What about cultivating a society where people don't take things so damn seriously?
Bjorn
-
I agree that what you are describing is the current standard in society. But why? I can watch a comedian like Lisa Lampanelli tell crude racial jokes, and still think it is perfectly ok. If she makes fun of my group, it is even funnier. If her jokes hit a soft spot in me, I don't feel the need to get upset, I just laugh it off. Many people get out of their way to get offended, as if they want to be offended. This seems to be the trend now. Microaggressions on campus. Religious sensitivities. Black lives matter. Feminism. Political correctness. What about cultivating a society where people don't take things so damn seriously?
Bjorn
bjoernen wrote:
What about cultivating a society where people don't take things so damn seriously?
You appear to be taking it very seriously that other people don't share your sense of humour.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I agree that what you are describing is the current standard in society. But why? I can watch a comedian like Lisa Lampanelli tell crude racial jokes, and still think it is perfectly ok. If she makes fun of my group, it is even funnier. If her jokes hit a soft spot in me, I don't feel the need to get upset, I just laugh it off. Many people get out of their way to get offended, as if they want to be offended. This seems to be the trend now. Microaggressions on campus. Religious sensitivities. Black lives matter. Feminism. Political correctness. What about cultivating a society where people don't take things so damn seriously?
Bjorn
I've no truck with the professionally offended certainly but the fact is that the prevailing image of people represented in the kind of humour you're talking about does make a difference to the lives of those who are their subjects. Say enough times, even in jest, that the Irish, or blondes, or blacks or whatever group you wish to laugh at, are stupid, for example, and people believe it. The inevitable result is a kind of callous disregard for those groups, a feeling that anything they get handed in the way of discrimination or persecution is no more than they deserve. So they go to the bottom of lists when applying for jobs, become the targets for discriminatory policing, and so on. Those who have powers over our lives to any degree do not need any encouragement to reinforce their inherent prejudices. I'm not saying that political correctness hasn't gone mad and doesn't deserve all the brickbats and criticism in the world to be heaped upon it. As with all positivism it is deeply flawed and intellectually unsupportable. That doesn't mean however that the total opposite, anything goes no matter who it damages, is automatically justified.
-
No, there is no limit to what can be joked about but there is a limit as to who can joke about it. I have no problem at all with survivors of the Holocaust or people directly affected by it joking about it. Gallows humour is just fine from those who are in the shadow if the gibbet. When people completely outside the situation make jokes about it, however, it is nearly always laughing at and not laughing with, a particularly callous kind of cruelty. Mockery has its place in the pricking of hubris by politicians, and celebrities, and sports stars. It should never be directed at those whose plight is not of their own choosing or upon whom suffering has been imposed by things beyond their control. This website appears to be unaware of that necessary distinction. It would be far better employed taking the piss out of those driving the refugees out of their own countries and those determined to halt their flight than those already sufficiently dispossessed of their dignity.
-
You can take that to be the point if you want. As you see that then, that means there really is no limit as to who can joke about what. *You* are settings some limit, and I can simply set an other one, neither of us would be right or wrong.
If we all lived as independent islands, sure. But we don't. We live in societies and those societies only function when limits are placed upon our freedom to do whatever the hell we like. In the past twenty years or so Western societies have been debating where those limits should lie in the case of humour and many other aspects of public speech as it has become clear that the existing ones are inadequate, out of date, and discriminatory. What was once considered acceptable is no longer and we can expect further changes to the limits of tolerance as we realise the full implications of concepts of equality. Yes, those limits will be arbitrary but they will be agreed and thus binding unless you are prepared to accept alienation from that society. In absolute terms it may not be right or wrong but as a pragmatic condition of real life it certainly is one or the other.
-
If we all lived as independent islands, sure. But we don't. We live in societies and those societies only function when limits are placed upon our freedom to do whatever the hell we like. In the past twenty years or so Western societies have been debating where those limits should lie in the case of humour and many other aspects of public speech as it has become clear that the existing ones are inadequate, out of date, and discriminatory. What was once considered acceptable is no longer and we can expect further changes to the limits of tolerance as we realise the full implications of concepts of equality. Yes, those limits will be arbitrary but they will be agreed and thus binding unless you are prepared to accept alienation from that society. In absolute terms it may not be right or wrong but as a pragmatic condition of real life it certainly is one or the other.
It's funny isn't it, while our propaganda machines are accusing our enemies of limiting freedom of speech, we're doing the same thing and have no intention of stopping. They have us fooled pretty good - while we're all laughing at our enemies, we're actually *encouraging* our governments to take away our freedom too! Well, it's still not wrong in any absolute terms.
-
It's funny isn't it, while our propaganda machines are accusing our enemies of limiting freedom of speech, we're doing the same thing and have no intention of stopping. They have us fooled pretty good - while we're all laughing at our enemies, we're actually *encouraging* our governments to take away our freedom too! Well, it's still not wrong in any absolute terms.
Generally speaking I find those who are first at the barricades to defend 'free speech' are those who least understand it and are least prepared to accede to its demands and requirements. To quote Brian Cox ...
Quote:
“The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”
What most people actually mean by 'freedom of speech' is "I can say anything I want. You can say anything I agree with."
-
Generally speaking I find those who are first at the barricades to defend 'free speech' are those who least understand it and are least prepared to accede to its demands and requirements. To quote Brian Cox ...
Quote:
“The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”
What most people actually mean by 'freedom of speech' is "I can say anything I want. You can say anything I agree with."
Well, it's certainly turning more and more into that, with all the crying about political correctness. The stance that's being taken is that you're allowed to say anything, as long as you're saying left wing things. No right wing statements about social issues, feefees could be hurt. Mr Wilders is actually being sued for hurting some feefees, though I suppose that's better than the fate of his predecessor Mr Fortuyn, who got assassinated for it. The attempt to ban "glorifying terrorism" (ie, talking shit and not actually doing anything) also tried to go in that direction.
-
I've no truck with the professionally offended certainly but the fact is that the prevailing image of people represented in the kind of humour you're talking about does make a difference to the lives of those who are their subjects. Say enough times, even in jest, that the Irish, or blondes, or blacks or whatever group you wish to laugh at, are stupid, for example, and people believe it. The inevitable result is a kind of callous disregard for those groups, a feeling that anything they get handed in the way of discrimination or persecution is no more than they deserve. So they go to the bottom of lists when applying for jobs, become the targets for discriminatory policing, and so on. Those who have powers over our lives to any degree do not need any encouragement to reinforce their inherent prejudices. I'm not saying that political correctness hasn't gone mad and doesn't deserve all the brickbats and criticism in the world to be heaped upon it. As with all positivism it is deeply flawed and intellectually unsupportable. That doesn't mean however that the total opposite, anything goes no matter who it damages, is automatically justified.
Why is this crude humor funny to begin with (for us who like it)? Because it has a kernel of truth in it, although warped to an absurd level. If it had no mapping to reality it wouldn't be funny, and purely offensive. Those stereotypes are correct to some extent. They were once based on facts about a group of people, and then exaggerated over time. But I think that most people know that individuals can be very far from their group stereotype. It's the same as how the first impression of someone can be totally wrong. So I don't buy your idea about discrimination. That's also why I don't agree with people who have a victim mentality, overly sensitive and not accept getting offended by anything. To live is to be offended by things. People in a weaker position shouldn't be off limits to ridicule, as long as that ridicule is funny. Take that Tetris game. Those are migrants looking for a better life, not refugees running away from a war zone. There are hardly any women or children in those boats; they have left the most needy behind. But out of political correctness we aren't allowed to say this, which makes it very funny when someone makes a game about it. It becomes funny because you are not allowed to make a game like this.
Bjorn