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.

ok fair enough. Don't agree with you but I see your argument.
right i think anything else I post will probably be repeating myself so might call it a day on this thread

......for now

Also, before I sin off and shut up, I would say that Carr changes his act for TV not because he wants the work, or is banned from saying certain things, but rather because he has acknowledged that the wider audence has not chosen to be 'in' on it and participate in the social experiement that is his act. It is a very strong act. Not everyone wants to hear it (as demonstrated by this thread).

This is a boundary he is forced to accept. He accepts though that those that choose to come along know what they are stepping into so when people complain about something that touches a nerve for them having laughed at things that might touch a nerve for others, he rejects their complaint as hypocrisy. He also polices them to some extent to check that they really are 'geting it' not using his words as weapons against others.

I have no idea why I have spent an entire Saturday night dissecting the work of Jimmy Carr I need to get out more...

I meant Sign off not Sin off, though of course others may beg to differ....

the "That's all well and good, MQ. But when Jimmy Carr headlines the theatre in your town/city, it's not the same as watching a film."
post

Yeah, I agree in part - like Jerry Sadowitz maybe. But I think he s very motivated by money....

I don't blame him, he must be fantastically wealthy.

But I also think he understands modern media and the way it works - he knws what he can do and where. He also has defended live standup as the last bastion of free speech where the performer and the audience are in the room and between them they thrash out what is acceptable and what isn't.

So I think he wants it all, true, but I see why.

I also don't laugh at everything he says and I don't think he would expect me to. Hell, I don't think he laughs at everything he says. In fact he laughs most when lampooning himself and his own patheticness.

So, coming back after several hours, do I understand it that all the hullabaloo has been due to a misunderstanding of the piece by the Daily Wail?

Now that made me laugh...I think it was the judicious use of the word 'Hullabaloo'

Thanks for explaining that, Tigereye.

I do think that there is a danger that when we start to intellectualise this kind of comedy, that we forget that those who are living with daily disability hate crime cannot just switch off the computer or the tv and walk away.

Carr finishes his show, goes home and puts his feet up. The audience go for a drink in the pub and discuss the show.

Bits and pieces of the show are retold to others and multiply and are likely exaggerated, and the "message" that Carr intends to tell gets lost.

I do think that Carr has a responsibility to the wider audience. And if it were all such great "satire" - what about the times when comedians have defended their jokes?

MmeLindor good point,
tbh that is why I get so angry(not distraught as some misinformed poster put it) when disabled people are targeted by these bullying comedians.
we have been the target of the local thugs, you know the ones that would find this kind of "joke" funny, it was hell. I think until you have lived through that, to see your children. your family targeted in this way, you have no right to say , oh just don't watch it,.
I find it so sad that people will say "oh It was just a joke" "freedom of speech" oh bollocks.....
it is just so crap that people like my dd have to put up with this crap.

Oh absolutely, I agree with you, he can go home and not worry about the effects (though he does a lot of stuff behind the scenes with various organisations and charities, he comes face to face with people who have to deal with stuff daily). I think he does worry though from what he has said.

I sometimes feel really angry at jokes that have been told and then I have to think them through. Knee-jerk reaction - 'That's a disgusting thing to say!'. Sometimes I stay with that and sometimes I realise, OK, I get where it's coming from now. That's the line being drawn, just there (for me).

What I find interesting is when people misinterpret things (in my opinion) against what a comedian intended. As an example, I have a friend who is lovely family man, really gentle, considerate etc etc. He absolutely floored me when he turned to me and said, in a quiet, conspiratorial voice, a racist interpretation of what I had seen as an anti-racist joke. I was so shocked (and disappointed actually).

So those people laughing at right-on PC jokes might be laughing for other reasons, those of us laughing at the un-PC nasty jokes might be laughing for completely different reasons. But, I accept, it can be difficut to work out who is laughing at what and why.

But we're not all ignorant cunts

Hmmmm... Personally I think this takes dissecting JC's humour a bit too much and giving him far too much credit, IMO.

"I would say that Carr changes his act for TV not because he wants the work, or is banned from saying certain things, but rather because he has acknowledged that the wider audence has not chosen to be 'in' on it and participate in the social experiement that is his act. It is a very strong act. Not everyone wants to hear it (as demonstrated by this thread).

This is a boundary he is forced to accept. He accepts though that those that choose to come along know what they are stepping into so when people complain about something that touches a nerve for them having laughed at things that might touch a nerve for others, he rejects their complaint as hypocrisy. He also polices them to some extent to check that they really are 'geting it' not using his words as weapons against others."

I feel like I'm sitting in the Church of Jimmy Carr...

I also found the "trust" comment along with the idea that the poster interpreted that she understood his intent and meaning a bit odd as well.

And the paragraph about parents of children with SNs looking out for people making fun of the children or being distraught over having children with disabilities ... well, it was incredibly condescending. Not to mention ridiculously stereotypical.

The "don't like it, don't watch it" brigade don't seem to think it applies to racial humour, only disablist. Interesting.

There's a difference between allowing free speech and inciting hatred and bullying of vulnerable children with disabilities, even if it is rather insidious. And I DO think that these type of jokes make it "okay" to many people to make derogatory comments and jokes about people/children with disabilities, which then makes them dehumanised to some extent, which them opens the door for further abuse.

I won't even go into the ridiculous nonsense of the sociological breakdown of satire and the intellectual aspect of the joke... as I personally don't think most people go to a comedian for an "intellectual evening do." I think that a comedian that uses that type of joke (for whatever reason) shows a disturbing lack of morality, ethics, and intelligence...as well as a distinct lack of creativity... surely he should be capable of finding other socially acceptable things that are funnier.

I don't wholley agree with what I'm asking, but don't you think holding comedians morally responsible for their material would be a dangerous road to go down MmeL?

I believe some jobs, like being an MP, should be held accountable for what they do in office, and I can understand why twatting footballers should curb their behaviour, but what could justify holding comedians responsible?

I know they can perpetuate and even generate certain ideas, but do they really have that much power over what people can think for themselves?

And who would take them to task and make the judgement over what's OK/what's not?

Got to agree with Triggles really.

People know there is a line when it comes to jokes concerning race. Personally I would like to see the same sort of line drawn wrt jokes concerning learning disabilities. That's it. Nothing more.

question, if you think people are wrong for think JC is a wanker and unfunny
...
if someone was taking the piss and making jokes about your child how would you feel.
now you must answer this question honestly.....because people like JC make the original "joke" but the bigots and thugs copy it.....so if it was your child how would you feel

come one be HONEST How would you feel?

Well, it's hard not to talk about Jimmy Carr when you've been asked to explain something like a joke in detail.

So, when you see Jim Davidson, do you know what you are letting yourself in for? Or do you turn up, take a seat and naively listen in? And if you go along to see Stewart Lee, do you have an expectation of where he is taking things?

That, is trust in action.

there's "talk" and there's "wax philosophically"... I suspect we wandered into the latter there.

AgentZ
I don't think that an individual comedian has that much power, but the genre itself does.

There are a fair few comedians on the national stage doing this kind of thing, and I presume many many more trying to break into comedy with similar type acts.

And it does surely influence the public's perception of SN, and what is acceptable.

Did anyone see the Facebook game this week? I only saw it alluded to but it was pretty vile by all accounts. That people were posting and reposting a game about an SN bus, it really shouldn't surprise me but it did.

I did say I would rather avoid dissecting the joke because talking about comedy is pretentious but there did seem to be a demand to demonstrate what 'might' be happening within the context of the wider gig.

So if we said nothing we'd be accused of having no arguments to back up our beliefs, if we analyse we are reading too much into things.

Triggles
Yes, I do agree, but at the same time it was interesting to see why people defend his humour and his work.

And I still did not have a "Ohhh, now I see. Yes, you are absolutely right, how silly of me not to see that" moment.

At the end of the day, as I said earlier, all the analysing of his work does not help those who deal with the knobs making nasty comments about their children.

But IMO it's not really an argument. I strongly suspect that many of the people going to see a comedy act are not there to psychoanalyse the jokes. They are there to have a few drinks and have a laugh. I think you're placing far too much of an intellectual bent on it.

I think the bottom line here is what someone posted earlier - if that same joke had been about a group of black children on the bus, it would have been socially unacceptable due to the racist tone. But because it is not yet deemed socially unacceptable by many in society to target disabled children, it is being defended. I find it appalling, as it does actually mean that many DO dehumanise disabled children to some degree. The fact that it can be misguidedly utilised as a vehicle for intellectual satire simply illustrates that point.