Woundedleaf
No I'm sure it wasn't your intention. It may just come naturally depending on where you are in terms of which rung on the ladder of discrimination you're on. My understanding of the history of war is about power - power over land and resources and 'other' people (especially when they are viewed as resources rather than competitors for resources e.g. American Civil War). Your view seems to have war down as something more noble (e.g. about actual points of view/differences in substantive opinion that people defend or advance)
What I was trying to express was that the act of deriding them won't have any impact - as proven by some of the comments on ph that they have made dismissing the validity of your view. You dismiss their view as invalid and they automatically do the same to you as it is too far removed from their sphere or reference.
I don't believe I have derided them. It's pretty fascinating to me how some people's morality works. When I get told a racist joke, you're probably already more than aware that I'm a bit of a killjoy about it. I either stop and tell the person I don't want to hear it if they start, and if somehow I end up hearing it, I don't repeat it as a joke. I like dark humour (Happiness by Todd Solondz; South Park The Movie; Nighty Night), I even like works of fiction for the skill and talent that they represent and the debate they spark even when morally they might repulse me (American Psycho/Lolita). I just draw the line at laughing at black people because they are black.
But even if I try and analyse it using my amateur comedy night school shit, I still don't get the joke. I get Bupcake's points about particular aspects of certain pictures being funny (surreal or situational comedy) but for me, the guy is pretty base and cruel in the way he is extracting humour from these women's appearances, and then to be racist on top of that tells me how exactly low he will go in order to secure a cheap laugh. It's not remotely satirical as one PH poster said, at least not in the sense I understand satire (HIGNIFY/ J Swift/Private Eye/ Yes Minister etc). If anyone does think it is satirical I would be interested to know how and why?
IMO it is purely cruel with very little else to recommend it so at it's best, it's extremely cheap, poor comedy and at its worst it's racist sexist hatred writ large in MS Paint (actually for me, the medium lends it the most humour because of how hard anyone who has ever used that will know it would be to draw anything remotely human using it) but ultimately, I don't want to like anything on that spectrum either as immoral or cheap shit comedy. I actually like You've Been Framed whenever I see it (mostly for Harry Hill's commentary) but that kind of comedy for me is 'surprise' comedy and it's also physical comedy - the anticipation of the action that is the punchline (it's not always someone hurting themselves) - and it's either very predictable (increases anticipation) or very unpredictable (surprise). It's also pretty egalitarian (everyone trips up/makes unwise ropebridge crossings from time to time/suffers a bit of overenthusiastic wedding disco damage on the odd occasion) in its subjects/targets.
I also take the point about racism being democratically deemed as inappropriate, however setting that point and the related pictures aside why is the automatic assumption that it is offensive made? Surely the right to be offended is primarily down to the individual who has been targeted.
The legal right to be offended (as in to claim for harassment from racism or sexism) at work or in the provision of goods and services (and I'm sure many other situations of which I'm not aware) is now not confined solely to the 'subject' if you like. So you don't have to be black, disabled, a woman, or gay to speak out and expect your intolerance of racism/sexism/s.o discrim etc. not to be dismissed. If you view law as a late indicator of society's changing norms then to me (which I do due to the connection with democracy as you pointed out earlier), the law is encouraging people to step up and speak, so for me the legal right to be offended is now in line with what I think is the morally responsible thing to do, but only since just over a year ago. It will be interesting to see if and how it creates a change in society's views as the decriminalisation of homosexuality did (in part).
I don't think any society can rely on only those who need to be protected to protect themselves. I think that's an I'm alright Jack attitude, and presumably if you need the protection of the law then you are already vulnerable in some way. If we're all to fend for ourselves well, then fuck it, I'm ramraiding Greggs tomorrow morning and spending this month's wages on tickets to BVI to try and get a place on Branson's Moon Rocket.
I detest bullying in all formats and sadly speak from experience, however I don't understand all forms of humour and therefore don't feel qualified to automatically categorise humour as offensive unless I can see an offended party. They may well be offended and if that is the case, I'd more than happily light your pitchfork.
Oh my pitchfork's already been lit. I lit it myself. If you've been bullied then you do realise that's a really passive attitude? Would you have not wanted anyone to stand up for you? Did anyone stand up for you? I was bullied at school too (I bet most people have experienced it at some point or another) and it made me not ever want to standby and watch or cheer on someone else being bullied, either intentionally or otherwise. To me you're saying white people can't find something offensive that is racially directed at any non-white group? Do you really believe that? I guess I feel offended on behalf of people I know and like and I get offended that people expect me to share their racist views on the basis of my colour. I wouldn't class that as being hysterical, I'd say it was a loyal and rational response. Most people seem to get pretty offended by being called racist, but yet aren't willing to examine why it is offensive to be racist. I subscribe to the Avenue Q school of thought on this: Everyone's a little bit racist. Which has to include me, so I have to be willing to question my own knee-jerk responses from time to time. I think I've examined it with more than enough words in this post as to why I think it points to an unpleasant or unthinking attitude to laugh and point at people in this way.
However, I'm equally wary of being one of the 'perpetually offended' that seem to cause the daily mail to thrive.
Jesus wept, this is the really fucking insidious nature of the DM scaremongering shit. Really. Far far worse than the incessant preaching to the converted, it even casts its shadow over non-readers so we are secondguessing ourselves over whether we're not just being terribly faux liberal over not laughing at someone because they are black. And most definitely not objecting to it on an online anonymous forum. Is it that it's just not cool or has your experience of bullying mean you never want to speak up in case you're the next target?
ps. AF* - my only contribution to your 'steamy windows' ishoo is a lame suggestion for impractical containers full of bicarbonate of soda to try and absorb the moisture in the air while you find the source. Would that even work? Is your car a fridge on wheels?