To find Jimmy Carr's latest 'joke' really disgusting and pathetic

[runningwilde]

Jimmy Carr has done it again. Nor content with making deeply disrespectful and horrid jokes about soldiers, he has now made a joke about children with Down's Syndrome and the Sunshine Variety coaches that do so much to help these kids and others too.

I used to like him but he goes too far. I really think that some things should not be joked about. Why do some people feel the need to tell
Jokes like that?

Yet, I am also aware of the fact that we can't censor jokes, but I wish some comedians actually set out to make us laugh with properly funny jokes rather than the nasty shit that Jimmy has been peddling again.

I think the problem with that serenity, is that it assumes that acceptance and progress is inevitable.

What we have seen historically, that there is no inevitability about it. When you describe people complaining about JC and his ilk, as wanting to "speed up" that acceptance process, what you're actually describing is the process. Without the complaints, the disgust, the discussions about it, the process wouldn't actually happen.

And what we also know, is that there is always a reaction. Every generation which fights for acceptance and liberation, gets told that it's asking for too much. When black people fought for civil rights, they were told that FGS, they weren't slaves any more, what more did they want? Then when they said they wanted their children not to be murdered at bus stops, they were told, FGS they had equal pay, what more did they want? When women fought for equal pay, they were told FGS, you've got the vote, what more d'you want? Now we're fighting the climate that enables us to be raped with impunity, we're told FGS, we've got the Equal Pay Act, what more do we want? And now disabled people have the right not to be kept hidden away in orphanages, they're being told FGS, what more do they want?

Every generation of marginalised people has a backlash in response to any battles they've won and the battle has to continue. Jimmy Carr and disgusting men like him, are part of the backlash and progressive, decent people have to pursue the battle against the forces he represents, because it's not inevitable that without engaging in the battle, it will be won by some sort of unstoppable process.

What does learning disabled mean?

AgentZigzag, I only think there's a point engaging in people who are genuinely listening and engaging themselves.

WMW is not here to genuinely enter into dialogue. That's not his/ her bag.

I agree with you eleanor, that was my point about regulation and being told "pcs gone mad" painful, unacceptable but ultimately part of getting there.

I have no doubt we will get there; I think it is inevitable. You can't have a group that's a target forever- unfortunatly they'll move onto someone else.

Am shocked people still use spaz.

I think she is engaging Eleanor, she's posting what she thinks isn't she?

Brushing her opinion off as insignificant/stupid/obtuse I think masks the fact that many people who think like that are intelligent 'normal' people.

It's like saying everyone who supported hitler was evil, they weren't, it's just easier to catagorise them as evil (and I'm not likening anyone who finds the joke funny to a Nazi ).

It's too simplistic an answer to explain why someone can't find the compassion to boo at the joke when they're in an audience and hear it.

So finding out what makes an intelligent person hold those views takes you part way to challenging what they say and redrawing the boundary.

Blimey, just looked at Carr's wiki. Suing Jim Davidson for stealing a joke, ffs?! A joke that had been around for decades and was presumably not very funny anyway if it was one Jim Davidson had been using? AND having his father arrested and prosecuted wrongly, since his father then got an apology from the police and from the CPS? Carr's clearly even more of a twisted person than I'd realised.

Serenity - wiki says 'Learning disability (LD, sometimes called a learning difference, learning disorder,[1] or learning difficulty) is a classification including several disorders in which a person has difficulty learning in a typical manner, usually caused by an unknown factor or factors. The unknown factor is the disorder that affects the brain's ability to receive and process information. This disorder can make it problematic for a person to learn as quickly or in the same way as someone who is not affected by a learning disability. People with a learning disability have trouble performing specific types of skills or completing tasks if left to figure things out by themselves or if taught in conventional ways.' LDs might include Down's Syndrome, for instance.

Ah ok. I understand what learning disabilities are, I thought DS was a physical disability (although presumably does (always?) affect learning too) actualy I should just google. Thanks though

I was surprised about 'spaz' as well Serenity, DD1 had no idea what it meant, probably the same as the children using it, but thankfully had an inkling it wasn't right and didn't use it herself.

But then I had to ask her what 'spech' was.

I firmly believe that when it comes to comedy, nothing should be off limits. Joan Rivers once performed a joke about deaf people, when she was heckled for it by someone whose mum was deaf, her response was this: MY daughter is deaf, if I don't make jokes and laugh, then I will cry.

In that sense, we should all be able to laugh at any subject, of course knowing that disabilities are not generally funny and the lives of people living with them are difficult and it can be very easy in that situation to become utterly miserable. For that reason if you are the disabled person or someone close to them, it is vital that they are able to find humour in life just the same as anyone else.

It is very easy to say that someone like Jimmy Carr is a bully and is making fun of individual disadvantaged people, but more difficult to understand that maybe, just maybe, he is making fun of the situation they are in rather than them as people, and from that point of view, any situation can be funny. I would be interested to know if anyone with Down's Syndrome found his joke offensive.

Gemjar - my DH has Narcolepsy/Cataplexy. Recently Narcolepsy has become a comedians gift. Lazy uninformed "comedy". Those funny people who fall asleep in their cornflakes. The reality of living with it and with someone who has it is far far different.
We joke about it between us. If we didn't we would cry. That's true I think of many who live with Disabilities of one kind or another. It's gallows humour if you will.
A million miles away from taking a vulnerable group ( not my DH, he can speak for himself but children fgs) and making them the butt of the joke. Despicable.

Gemjar - there's a big difference between finding humour in coping with a shit situation, or in someone who is in a vulnerable/marginalised group being amusing about it, or someone poking fun at prejudice and straight, stupid, bullying of the 'ew, they look different to me, look at the funny cripple/gay person/black person/whatever'.

Goodness Gracious Me was funny because it was Asian people making fun of Asian stereotypes. Jim Davidson doing an imitation of an Asian accent because 'ooh, those people are stupid and can't talk properly' is merely prejudice that reinforces stereotypes.

FoOffys, btw, I once knew a woman with narcolepsy who ran her own PR agency. So was working freelance/contract for clients. You'd think that was very tricky indeed but she managed it, because she was darn good at her job and overcame clients' preconceptions. Of course everyone's an individual and her success doesn't negate the enormous challenges facing anyone with narcolepsy - but I did find it encouraging.

Good lord. Does it really need to keep being said over and over again?

The issue is not that jokes around disability should be off limits.

The issue is that jokes which have no other comedic punch line that 'hahaha, don't they look funny' should be consider repugnant by most people who have even a modicum of simple basic humanity.

Richard Prior made fantastic jokes around race and ethnicity.

Jim Davidson walked funny, gurned and did a west Indian accent whilst behaving in a deeply thick way.

See the difference?

Freedom of speech is a nice line from people who want to point and laugh up their sleeves at the funny retards.
But it is to do with the intent of the humour.
Jimmy Carr is capable of being very funny. But the fact that he sees no problem with this joke suggests he is either out for a headline or ultimately very nasty.

Anyone who finds 'they all look the same' funny is the equivalent of the guffawing Jim davidson fans of 1970.

The point is though, IS it always the individuals who are being laughed at, or is it their situation? I think someone on here mentioned that the BBC had received lots of complaints about the new Ricky Gervais series because it was about dwarves before it had even aired!

I hate Jim Davidson and his generation of out dated comedians as much as anyone, but I think that there is a big difference between him and Jimmy Carr. People are always very quick to be outraged by things that certain comedians say, like with the Joan Rivers reference above, without taking the time to think about what is actually being said. Sometimes they do get it wrong and it is never acceptable to poke fun at a group of people who cannot answer back. But I would defend with my life both Jimmy Carr's and even Jim Davidson's right to make whatever jokes they like, and it bothers me that people feel they can comment before actually hearing an joke for themselves. Of course not everyone is going to like what Jimmy Carr has to say, but that is what Michael MacIntyre is for.

Gemjar

You do get that the thread is about a specific joke and not about Jimmy Carr?

And the joke is 'hahaha people with ds/sn all look the same'

There is no situational context. That is the joke.

It is exactly the same as Jim davidson.

Gemjar But I would defend with my life both Jimmy Carr's and even Jim Davidson's right to make whatever jokes they like

Do you honestly mean that???

Nazi's gassing people? Black people being lynched? SN children being abused by twats?? All game are they?

I would defend with my life the rights of a child with special needs/learning difficulties not to be treated as a separate species there for the mocking and the cheap laughs.

There's a major difference between wishing to ban speech, and wishing to make it plain that certain types of speech are seen as socially unacceptable by 99% of the people.

So the freedom of speech argument is a bit of a red herring.

sorry but what was the joke anyway? it's not on the first few pages and the thread is very long by this stage. I appreciate that people may not want it repeated or MN may not want it on the thread, so if that's the case could someone pm it to me or the youtube link if that's how it's come to light? kind of hard to form a proper opinion without knowing what he said.

I agree. Except I think the freedom of speech argument is very convenient.

It allows people to gloss over the grim content and take a moral high ground stance. The 'i will defend with my life their right to say it..' thing.

Actually I think anyone should make any joke they like. As long as I am allowed to say that I think the joke is shit and that they are a massive twat for making it.
Well without being considered intimidatory or professionally offended.

The freedom of speech argument is quite revealing. I am so tempted to post a circa 1970's Bernard Manning joke and see if the same people roll up huffing about 'just don't watch it' 'professionally offended' 'god, have you no sense of humour, it's edgy'

He said he doesn't understand why buses have Variety Club on them when all the children look exactly the same. Geddit.

I hope you were holding on to your sides.

In saying Jim Davidson should have the right to say what he pleases Gem, doesn't take into account the shift in what's socially acceptable and a lot of what he said would be classed as inciting racial hatred nowadays.

If it was just a matter of supply and demand, ie people like it and will say when they don't, that's a similar situation to companies finding it acceptable to sell clothes that sexualize children, just because they perceive a 'demand' to be there doesn't mean it's alright for them to sell such crap.

no i'd agree completely pagwatch and I am one of those "defend their right to say it..." types.
Because it applies equally. If I defend anyones right to tell racist/homophobic/dsablist jokes then I equally defend anyones right to say the joke isn't funny, that the person telling the joke is a bigot/racist etc. and that the sort of person who finds the joke funny is most likely the same.
The freedom of speech argument should only really come in when people start mentioning banning/censoring/prosecuting comedians which I appreciate that this thread has not gone down that route so it is a bit of a red herring in this context, where as on other threads (i seem to remember one calling for a ban on frankie boyle) it was a completely appropriate argument.

right not his best work there then.