Originally posted by CribsIn the case of gossiping (to get back on topic), one should talk to the gossipers and ask them why they're gossiping.
Week 3 Pimpin' Study be on Keepin' It Fair
Week 1 we learned how to keep it real.
Week 2 we learned how to keep it clear.
Dis week we gonna study up on how to keep it fair.
What do we gotta keep fair? Tha stable. That's right,
when you be layin' down tha law, you gotta be doin'
it so no ho's be gettin' shortchanged, ya feelin' me?
I ain't ...[text shortened]... estion down on
all you amateurs!
Next week's study be on Tools of tha Trade.
Dr. Cribs
Then one should point out that anything being said behind one's back should also be said to one's face.
Bend it like that it's a sign of personality and character.
As for the under-achieving whore, I'd sue her for loss of income.
Then back off-topic,
There is a major difference between racism and joking about racism. The same goes for sexism and everything else.
I know the polictically correct get their knickers in a twist and I will concede that humour has boundaries and that some people do not know the boundaries.
For instance, a joke on Jews in WWII can be exceptionally amusing. I would though, neglect to crack the joke in front of facist skinheads.
A great example of this came from the actor who played Alf Garnett. He was at a football match and some supporters came over to him and praised his stance on "darkies and liberals". He explained to them that his character was actually taking the piss out of racists and their attitudes and the football supporters thought he was joking.
A clear sign that humour is maybe not reaching everyone. That humour has become reality. That's never a good thing.
And so you then must ponder: Do you stop the enjoyable (for humour is enjoyable) or do you persist and stop worrying about a minority who can't appreciate it.
I made my mind up long ago:
Unless it is a specific group I am addressing (I did an internship working with skinheads in the Rotterdam region, at a club house) I will keep my sense of humour intact.
Take for instance this feminist stance against Cribby G.
Does anyone for one minute actually think it's more than a joke? (Cribby G's post, not the feminist stance)
Does anyone for one minute think it's a larger step backwards for feminism than the lastest publication by the Pope?
Which of the two is more serious?
Originally posted by shavixmirwhat difference does it make which is more serious, if they are both serious.
Does anyone for one minute think it's a larger step backwards for feminism than the lastest publication by the Pope?
Which of the two is more serious?
when you say A clear sign that humour is maybe not reaching everyone. That humour has become reality. That's never a good thing.
you might also recognize that if we laugh off things that can become an unpleasant reality for some, it may well become reality.
you certainly didn't find it particularly funny when slimjim and cm were calling you a facist a few months back (in fact, you summoned the mods, with tragic consequences) - do you think they were joking?
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by shavixmirSorry Pradtf, you are one person I really don't like to disagree with, but I have to here.
Take for instance this feminist stance against Cribby G.
Does anyone for one minute actually think it's more than a joke? (Cribby G's post, not the feminist stance)
the answer is no. And that's coming from a woman. I find none of it offensive. I find Cribs to be extremely intelligent and has a heck of a way with words. There is a method to his madness and I am looking forward to more.
ncrosby🙂
Originally posted by pradtfI didn't find it funny and I don't think they intended it to be funny.
what difference does it make which is more serious, if they are both serious.
when you say A clear sign that humour is maybe not reaching everyone. That humour has become reality. That's never a good thing.
you might also recog ...[text shortened]... equences) - do you think they were joking?
in friendship,
prad
I didn't hear anyone saying: "They're just jokin' there Shavi..."
I don't know about humour leading to reality. I reckon one's perception of reality can only be strengthened by humour, not altered.
Do you have example of where a joke has created or completely altered a human's perception of reality?
EDIT:
Forgot an i in the brackets....sorry....
EDIT 2:
Put the i in front of the / in the brackets...sorry again...
Originally posted by ncrosbyi don't really know what you are disagreeing with since you have quoted shavixmir.
Sorry Pradtf, you are one person I really don't like to disagree with, but I have to here.
the answer is no. And that's coming from a woman. I find none of it offensive. I find Cribs to be extremely intelligent and has a heck of a way with words. There is a method to his madness and I am looking forward to more.
ncrosby🙂
i don't really see what difference it makes what one's sex is. as you may have noticed on this thread, some (wo)men find pimping offensive, some don't.
nor do i see what intelligence has to do with it.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfMaybe I would be better understood in the gender thread. So I'll leave the Dr. to do his pimping here and post my thoughts in the other one.
i don't really know what you are disagreeing with since you have quoted shavixmir.
i don't really see what difference it makes what one's sex is. as you may have noticed on this thread, some (wo)men find pimping offensive, some don't.
nor do i see what intelligence has to do with it.
in friendship,
prad
ncrosby🙂
Originally posted by shavixmirwell i didn't find it funny either as i told you.
I didn't find it funny and I don't think they intended it to be funny.
I didn't hear anyone saying: "They're just jokin' there Shavi..."
I don't know about humour leading to reality. I reckon one's perception of reality can only be strengthened by humour, not altered.
Do you have example of where a joke has created or completely altered a human's perception of reality?
it isn't one joke and one human.
it happens when we allow jokes of an oppressive nature to become 'natural' or 'acceptable'.
here is an example. in the vocational school where i taught, some teachers would be very 'considerate' towards the kids (many of whom had been labelled retarded) and then in the staff room make jokes about how stupid these kids were. new teachers to this environment would often fall in line' with the humour. the effect was naturally carried out into the classrooms and the kids really couldn't have been all that stupid, because they soon figured out which teachers thought they were stupid and which ones didn't.
the school psychologist was once telling me it was necessary to talk down to the students level. when i told her that i didn't talk any differently to the kids as i did to her, she thought i was joking, but then became horrified when she found out i wasn't. i wonder if she thought i actually thought she was as capable as the kids 😀
humour may be the best medicine, but not when the cure is worse than the disease.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfYes, But...
well i didn't find it funny either as i told you.
it isn't one joke and one human.
it happens when we allow jokes of an oppressive nature to become 'natural' or 'acceptable'.
here is an example. in the vocational school where i taught, some teachers would be very 'considerate' towards the kids (many of whom had been labelled retarded) and then ...[text shortened]... y be the best medicine, but not when the cure is worse than the disease.
in friendship,
prad
Is this humour which alters the attitudes or a constant repetition of a message?
In some countries the Dutch are called stingy and in other countries it's the Scots. I'm 50/50. That makes me a cross-breed of the stingiest nations in the world.
Now, taking all jokes from every single angle about the stingiesness of both nations, that's a hell of a lot of joking.
Is there one person who would really think I'm stingy because of this?
Now, if you come up with facts like:
- Going Dutch means sharing food 50/50 to cut one's personal costs.
- The average Dutch person doesn't go to the pubs until after 12 at night, so that they can do the most of their drinking at home and cut expenses
- etc.
and repeat this and the humour constantly, then, yes, this can lead to an altered reality. But, in my most sincere opinion, this isn't due to humour, but due to repetition and a gross mis-use of (not necessairly true) facts.
Originally posted by shavixmirquite correct! but if it is accepted as being funny, it will be repeated and implant itself in the minds of those who hear it over and over again. that is one reason why the teachers thought the kids were stupid.
and repeat this and the humour constantly, then, yes, this can lead to an altered reality. But, in my most sincere opinion, this isn't due to humour, but due to repetition and a gross mis-use of (not necessairly true) facts.
one of my students who worked in the kitchen and could overhear what went on in the staffroom told me "teachers say nice things in front of you and then go make jokes behind your back"
another was more blatant: "do they even know what it means to be a teacher?"
fighting this racism and sexism under the guise of humour does take time because people it is so much simpler to laugh along and think there is nothing wrong, and even when the victims speak up their voices are often drowned out with laughter or rationalizations, but eventually ...
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfBut if something is accepted as funny or humorous, why would it be accepted as real?
quite correct! but if it is accepted as being funny, it will be repeated and implant itself in the minds of those who hear it over and over again. that is one reason why the teachers thought the kids were stupid.
one of my students who worked in the kitchen and could overhear what went on in the staffroom told me "teachers say nice things in front of you ...[text shortened]... often drowned out with laughter or rationalizations, but eventually ...
in friendship,
prad
I can think of two reasons:
1. It is real, and it is funny.
2. A constant repetition of facts are produced to back up the humour.
So, to take your example:
I would suggest that either:
a. The teachers didn't really think the kids were stupid, but thought the joke was funny.*
b. The kids are really stupid
c . The kids are not really stupid, but a constant source of information was repeated to which the teachers were exposed to. This resulted in the joke becoming reality.
* Even then, it's not good for teachers or people in power to make fun of individuals to which they are supposed to be benificial. It's counter-productive. I'll give you that, absolutely. (especially if they the kids can hear them....makes you wonder who's stupid...)
As to the last point you make:
Humour can be insulting.
Ever cracked a joke about death and somebody whimpers: "My granddad just died..."
I believe in a safe enviroment. Safe so that people can be who they wish to be and can expand themselves to the best of their abilities. I also believe that all forms of humour are okay. However, the safety of the enviroment also entails that if someone should feel insulted they are safe to say so.
In real life you say: "Sorry, I did not mean to offend."
In thread life I reckon it's best not to read the threads which insult you.
Obviously this doesn't mean I won't and that I won't respond when people are, in my opinion, out of order. And I presume you will do the same.
Originally posted by shavixmirof course and that is just what i and a couple of others have been doing on this thread.
I believe in a safe enviroment. Safe so that people can be who they wish to be and can expand themselves to the best of their abilities. I also believe that all forms of humour are okay. However, the safety of the enviroment also entails ...[text shortened]... n my opinion, out of order. And I presume you will do the same.
a safe environment is one where all people can be who they wish to be. what this means here is that if cribs wants to be a pimp that is fine in theory, but if his posts are demeaning to women (specifically that it is funny to have a woman be exploited and abused and even 'sued for underachieving' as you wrote), then possibly some women are not free to be who they wish to be, because they know that they may be viewed as hoes because they are women (even though they may not be actually exploited, abused or sued).
it is hardly sufficient to say 'just don't read the thread'. if it were as simple as that, then we really wouldn't need the TOS because we could simply skip threads whenever we found them insulting.
but you can't skip threads that insult, because you don't even have to read them. their very existence and the participation of the members brands you - just as the students were branded by the teachers even though most of them never heard what went on. it is the attitudes of the teachers that needed changing, not the sound-proofing of the walls of the staff-room.
and attitudes can and do change - but it takes some work.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfI do not see this thread (or the original topic and my answer to it) as anything more than an extended joke.
of course and that is just what i and a couple of others have been doing on this thread.
a safe environment is one where all people can be who they wish to be. what this means here is that if cribs wants to be a pimp that is fine in theory, but if his posts are demeaning to women (specifically that it is funny to have a woman be exploited and abused and ev ...[text shortened]... staff-room.
and attitudes can and do change - but it takes some work.
in friendship,
prad
I'd be perfectly willing to apologize to anybody who feels my sense of humour is discriminotory in any sense, but, I have to admit, I'd find it very hard to believe.
Originally posted by shavixmirthat is kind of you, but i don't think there is any need to apologize to anyone, shav.
I do not see this thread (or the original topic and my answer to it) as anything more than an extended joke.
I'd be perfectly willing to apologize to anybody who feels my sense of humour is discriminotory in any sense, but, I have to admit, I'd find it very hard to believe.
i know it is all one big joke and that cribs isn't trying to be offensive - my exchange with him was just as polite as it has been with you.
the joke just isn't funny though for the reasons i have stated throughout the thread and the ramifications are substantial.
this is a community of people - different genders, different ages, different backgrounds and even different senses of humour (and mine really is not too bad). however, if we are to function as a community with cohesion rather than dissension, we must not only show that certain amount of tolerance - we need to also control this urge to do whatever we feel like.
it is no different offline and it is just as necessary online.
otherwise, here people will exercise their freedom of screech with a vengeful indulgence and the forums will deteriorate into chaos - as it often happens, even here.
it is unnecessary, unkind and unfair - these are not the paragons we wish to pursue.
in friendship,
prad
I think we can all agree that people on this site have as much right to be funny/sarcastic as they do to not be harassed. This seems like a simple thing, but based on the length of this thread it clearly is not. In some ways I agree with prad, but it makes me sad to have to agree with him/her? (I honestly don’t know)!! You see Dr. Cribs was trying to be funny, and what is more, he was making a clever point. I find this thread, and many of Cribs posts in general, to be interesting and textured.
What we, both here at RHP and in the world at large, need to do is figure out when something stops being funny and starts being abusing and/or harassing. I think it is VERY important to remember that a persons dislike of something is in no way akin to their being abused or harassed. So what is the litmus test? Do we call any comment that anyone feels harassed over as legitimate harassment? Does it take more than one person to speak of their feeling harassed by a comment before we call it legitimate harassment? How many persons does it take?
The post in question is just one of a number of posts on the same topic, it is now that someone has protested. I wonder prad, if you are upset by the post itself or only the fact that someone did not care for it? Please understand I’m not accusing you of ill intent in any way…I just wonder why these posts went on for so long before you spoke up. Not to say that if your only concern is that someone was offended is not a legitimate reason to interject, indeed it seems a fine reason to question content. However, I was enjoying Cribs posts and I know a great many others were as well. Who gets to decide if it is harassment or not? Must we cater to the most sensitive among us when concerning these issues?
Darn, it seems I’m full of questions and all out of answers…again!!
The Skipper
P.S. I suppose just because many people enjoy something does not necessarily mean it is not harassing or abusive…sigh…All this stuff really bugs me.
Originally posted by pradtfOnly if you interpret them literally, without the
1. I work her all around tha Red Square and under tha bridges in St. Petersburg
2. Ho's never tell me Nyet!, unless they want a one-way ticket to Siberia
point 1 is specifically an exploitive action and they don't say nyet because point 2 the abusive threat of siberia looms in the distance.
possibility that pimps may speak in metaphor.