The point is (as far as i can see) he made a joke that wasn't funny, that was pointing and laughing at disabled children, and that makes him a bit of a cunt really
I think the problem though is that this is a thread, about a headline in a very piss-poor 'news'paper that specifically took one particular line in a whole routine, took it out of context and interpreted it in a certain way.
It therefore placed something that sounded highly dubious into a different contect from the one in which it was said and received. You're right, language is highly important and the way Carr uses it is quite a tricky thing. He is like a slippery eel in that respect.
If you accept the premise that he made this specific joke in such a way as to imply that all DS children look the same and are somehow sub-human and we should all laugh at them then yes, what he said was offensive.
If I thougt for a minute that is what he meant, and what the audience heard, then would condemn him without hesitation. But, having seen him, and seen the routine, and followed a lot of what he has said outside of his comedy routines, I don't for one nanosecond think that is what he meant. Far far from it.
And, as someone who has seen and enjoyed his work, I do find it rather offensive that the thread implies that people such as myself are (what was it?) morons, poorly educated, deeply unpleasant people who condone acts of violence perpetrated against disabled people and consider them to be less than human. I also disagree that there is a direct correlation between Carr saying something in particular in a context to a particular audience, and people (who may or may not have ever seen his routine) bullying, torturing or tormenting people with disabilities.
I agree wholeheartedly that such a joke can and possibly will be used in a playground, or in the street or anywhere as an act of aggression. To some extent though Carr and his ilk cannot be held responsible for how others choose to use their material. In fact part of the point is to highlight that actually, there is this issue still within society, it hasn't gone away, it s an act of stupidty and cruelty but that ultimately he is not the one to cause or instigate it. Within the context of his act his audience has an understanding of where he is coming from. Take a joke like that out of that context and the Mail is playing a highly manipulative and irresponsible game by introducing an idea in a very misleading way thus given it a 'wider' and possibly less discerning audience. There is a particula media theory that suggests that people choose the media (or material) they want to read or watch purely to reinforce their existing beliefs. The material does not shape r legitimise their beliefs in such a simplistic way as might be suggested here. Therefore some people may well attend a gig to hear certain jokes in certain ways. From what I have seen most people do not go to hear jokes told against disabled kids, they go to hear jokes about kids and disability that actually say something quite different. There are neanderthals at any gig anywhere though, and they usually get the piss ripped out of them much to the audience's enjoyment.
I'm not going to pick the joke apart or analyse it. What I am trying to say is that some or all of the objections in this thread are a response to the Mail article NOT the joke. The joke existed somewhere else, in another time, place and context and as such had a very different meaning to when it got snipped out, plonked in a Mail headline and interpreted in a certain way.
Leveson Inquiry anyone? If you want to be offended, read about how Mail journalists conduct themselves in real life that results in human misery and suicide. The Mail is not allowed across my threshold, Carr's DVD however dropped onto my mat yesterday and I am very happy about that.