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.

Sorry, but I do think that it is intellectual pontification.

He and his fans are setting themselves apart from normal people. They are setting themselves up as being superior because they understand that the jokes are not about people with SN but about holding a mirror up to the faces of the audience and saying, "What do you see?".

And they are doing this on the backs of those who are dealing with shitty comments day in day out.

How would you feel if you were out with your child and someone said something about him being a "window licker" or said that you should have terminated the pregnancy, to save tax payers money. I suspect that these are the kind of things that are being said to parents of children with SN.

Would that upset you?

Would you see the difference between that and Carr's routine?

no, what I meant was, at least with the telly stuff, some of us are arguing that it's not ok for him to pretend to be the bigoted person, because half his audience will be agreeing with him

.. that last post was to BTP

".. but the audience is too thick to do so?"

If that's the case then there's little JC can do about it. If you go on to Stormfront (a white pride website) there a loads of threads which talk about American Histroy X being one of the greatest movies made but which backed out of the realistic ending i.e. Edward Nortons character remiaing a skinhead after his brothers death (their claims not mine).
Now American History X is a brilliant and powerful movie, the fact that some people have used it to validate the fucked up sentiments they already held can not be laid at the door of the director.

Now Edward Norton is very yum.

'tis true there's no accounting for thickness

They're not setting themselves up as superior. They are participants in something that is defined in a specific way. There is a mutual understanding that is checked and re-checked by Carr throughout the performance.

The point is, the Daily Mail blew all of that away and lifted the joke from that context and hoisted it up in front of the nation in a way that did not reflect what it was actually about. The joke as it stands is nasty. It's meant to be. It's an acknowledgement that it is, there is a silly twist on words in it but by and large it's about that moral boundary that can or can't be crossed, which is up to the individual.

It actually is more damaging when portrayed by the Mail in the way it was. Those going to see Carr by and large are 'in' on it. They are not the ones running down the street shouting Windowlicker.

It's dangerous when these kind of things get taken out of context and commented upon.

Carr said specifically that the things said on stage within the show are not the things that any normal person would say to another person's face as a response to their situation. That is why he gets upset when irresponsible hacks do that - like when they rang mothers of disabled servicemen and told them the joke down the phone. It turned it into something totally different to what he said.

Thing is there is not necessarily a direct correlation between Carr telling that joke (the whole thing) to his own audience and the abuse being directed towards SN kids in the street. That's erroneous.

Mayor
But in that film, the ending is not what they think it should be. (I presume, have not seen the film). They are twisting the film to fit their political views.

Carr's audience isn't twisting anything. They are taking what he says at face value.

The ones who are twisting it are the "clever" ones who understand it is satire.

That is a big difference.

Mayor that was the point I tried (and failed) to make about the History Channel showing Hitler documentaries.

What was the context then?

You keep saying that the DM lifted it out of context, but no one has explained what the context was.

Who says Carr's audience is taking it at face value? How do you know that?

The Mail putting it out there for all and sundry to pick up on in its edited form is putting it in front of people who will take it at face value. Carr is careful not to do that at all.

I tried to explain the context and I think so did a few others :(

And the same applies to the Hitler documentaries.

They are made to educate and inform (and are a weird byproduct of the Great British Obsession with the War, but that is a subject of a separate rant).

If someone deliberately misunderstands this then that is too bad, but it was not the intention of the makers of these documentaries.

Carr is assuming that those who see his show are in on the great satirical joke.

Is it made clear that it is satire, or is it open to interpretation?

Or put it this way, if someone who was a bit slow on the uptake were to watch it, would they get that he was being satirical?

"Thing is there is not necessarily a direct correlation between Carr telling that joke (the whole thing) to his own audience and the abuse being directed towards SN kids in the street. That's erroneous."

Really? BUt there's surely a correlation between it being acceptable to tell this type of joke and the comments etc made to kids with SN on the street. Otherwise we'd all still be running around talking about race in a 1970's way. Of course racism wasn't the fault of the comedians (not even Jim Davidson), but there's a feedback there. And of course racism still exists - but I think on the whole people understand that some comments that would have been acceptable in 1975 are not now. If it was unacceptable to have this routine, then it would have an impact on life as lived on the street.

I'm not sure Carr can check on a mutual understanding throughout a show with multiple people. Although I take your point that it is built up through turns and can be checked. But the audience cannot take an active role in that checking (and Carr can't take an active role in correcting) so there will be assumptions made.

Although tbh I'd rather be talking about Edward Norton.

You explained the general concept, but not how this joke, or one similar would be told in the context of his show.

I am not good with theories. I need examples.

Cause I simply cannot see how this could be funny in any context.

well no mmelindor they praise the actions the whole way through. Actions we are being shown in with the intent that we should be horrified or disgusted but which they revel in and celebrate. I think my post highlighted their alternate ending thing as their main issue, when what i meant to highlight was their enjoyment of the film as a whole bar one portion of it as celebrating white supremacy and racially motivated violence.
It's not about taking either "at face value" both are presented ot the audience at face value, the violence is what it is and at the time of the attacks in the movie they are viewed by the gang as positives. Carr similarly tells his jokes, he doesn't say one way or the other if they are morally sound at the time of the telling.
As I mentioned earlier throughout his shows Carr will often put in checks or dissections of the jokes and as to what he finds funny about them. so like with that movie he is revealing and evaluating his own stand-point and inviting the audience to do the same and not just laugh along saying "isn't rape funny and acceptable as an objective act"

God - the painted veil :fans self:

Although I have been watching King Arthur tonight :fans self again:

See this is more interesting

i have now decided to get some beers from the fridge and watch american history x though as soon as i get the energy to standup (get it.... stand-up?)

Or put it this way, if someone who was a bit slow on the uptake were to watch it, would they get that he was being satirical?

Yes of course they could, if they chose to misinterpret they could. Carr checks verbally with the audience but he also picks apart the jokes and the response.

Such as 'Really? You laughed at that?' or 'Really, that's your feedback on the joke? There's a lot wrong with that joke....' and then goes on to explore more about the joke. Also, he does not necessarily say the jokes are funny. He throws them out there to see what the response is. You have to make your own mind up.

A lot of laughter is more along the lines of 'Fucking hell, that's funny wordplay but that it a horrible joke, I can't believe you said it out loud...shit, I can't believe I laughed...hmm...others are laughing, then looking embarrassed...Well, that's interesting....' and a constant stream of backand forth boundary testing. A lot of the material is harmless then you get a few grenades lobbed in to keep you on your toes.

It's not a routine about SN. Not at all. It's about what are the political and social 'hot potatoes' that push buttons at the moment and how does an audience grant permission or reject those jokes?

I'm not really explaining it very well.... :(

sorry btp don't follow your point.
Interested in this debate so could you expand on what you mean if you could?