"Humour needs to come from truth, or some kind of recognition that it could be true, and the JC "joke" just isn't funny because anyone who lives in the world knows that DS kids don't all look alike.
We all know for a fact that he wouldn't have substituted the work "black people" for "downs kids" (and it also used to be acceptable to propagate the fallacy that white people can't tell black people apart.)
He wouldn't do this because it became not in any way OK to make racist jokes."
With respect, in part this is what the joke (and actually, the wider context of the act - because it is an act) is about. It's about the laziness of the stereotype and the set of assumptions required to set a joke up like that. It is about hitting a largely unconcious desire to laugh because of a level of recognition in an accepted truth. To a small extent, the joke as it stands is about how to the lazy mind they do 'all look the same yet we know - because we are intelligent people - that they don't. The joke is like many of his jokes - hand grenades lobbed into the audience to see what reaction they get. He is often referring quite directly in his act to the unconscious - the id, ego and superego and how certain things may connect with something very hidden or buried, things that as adults we process and know to be unacceptable. Part of the point is to connect with something either through a simple play on words or through a stereotype and see if it connects. Thats the 'Ooh' that follows the laugh.
Carr himself states very clearly on many occasions that because he says something - uses words to trip up the psyche - it does not mean he agrees with or supports it. He is, in many contexts, showing us the lazines behind the stereotype - he knows, as we do, that SN kids don't 'all look the same'. He slides in and out of a persona and pushes at boundaries to get a response. I wouldn't mind betting that he often is quite shocked at what peope laugh at - he occasionally dissects an audience reaction to show how disgusting it is to laugh at that. He qualifies what he does by saying - 'We all know that these are just jokes. Just words. Wordplay.' and indeed he has said 'Of course I am not the person I appear on stage. If people thought I really was like that, they would think I was a monster'. He expressed dismay at Jo Brand condemning his 'rae' jokes by saying 'I am upset because I thought she understod it, I thought she got where it comes from'.
Frankie Boyle described comedians as 'riding the crest of a wave'. Their job is to respond to the culture they live within, to some extent hold up a mirror to the truths, however unpleasant. Comedy is not always pleasant, or funny - read 'Comedians' by Trevor Griffiths if you want to see what he refers to. The jokes may serve as a reflexive action - look how shit aspects of society are. We still have a society where disabled people are discriminated against. He is the mouthpiece, if you like, of society and there is something highly unpalatable about present culture with regards to disabled people.
No Carr doesn't make (many) 'racist' jokes because the text of our present culture is not focused on that. He has made jokes about religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and belief systems. He has discussed 1970s comedy in interviews, and how what he is doing may superficially seem similar to, say Manning or Davidson et al, but that the context and intent is very different. That's why he was upset at Davidson taking a joke and using it for different efect for a different purpose.
The trouble is it is a fine line. Comics get it wrong Boyle in my opinion got it wrong by personalising about Price's son. It was the equivalent of standing in the street pointing. But his intention was different.
Carr's context is complex. It rests on a longstanding relationship with his audience and the concept of boundaries and permission, as well as the darkness within human nature to laugh at incredibly dark areas of life. Each tour is about that relationship, pushing of boundaries and what is permissable. There is a to and fro dialogue between him and the audience and he often does express shock or dismay. He is known outside of his act to be very liberal, kind, and responsive to other people. I know some profess to 'know' him however I would point out that Carr himself went through a very dark and depressed period of his life and by his late 20s reached a crisis point. So how he was in the past may no be an accurate reflection of how he is now.
And as for the comments about how he 'looks wierd, creepy, there's something wrong with him' on this thread - well. Irony, much?
No one to my knowledge sat in that audience and laughed and said 'That joke is funny cos it's true, they DO all look the same'. The point was, it is a lazy stereotype that could be used as a weapon but is blatantly stupid and demonstrates the teller to be foolish. It's a juxtaposition of words - Carr delights in words - variety and same - that can be linked in a context. But they are 'just words' and used to demonstrate that we all know what tey are supposed to imply but that we all also know that they are simply not true and also unsayable. He is not so crass as to create a 'Pub Landlord' comedy character because it is much subtler than that.
I don't really want to go on about it any more than that because analysing comedy is pretentious, and no one wants my essays on what Carr may or may not be saying in one line taken out of context and plastered across the Daily Mail.
Sorry if that was long and rambling, but it is actually a very subtle act that he has and it is hard to express it on an internet forum.