What makes a joke offensive?

[Satchmo Distel]

Is it when "punching down" at disadvantaged, stigmatized groups? Or is it always in the ear in the beholder?

[hummingofevil]

I would suggest if it is not funny. If I get offended by a joke I'm laughing at then the hypocrisy is on me at least.

Plus I would argue there is a distinction between the idea that a joke is intrinsically offensive and telling it objectively OFFENDS people and just thinking that a certain comic telling certain jokes is just a bit of a cunt.

[Johnny Yesno]

your mum

[neveragain]

I think this little piece about stand-up comedy (and mostly sexism) contains an interesting discussion of shock humour around the 16-minute mark, with some lines genuinely shocking the audience:
https://youtu.be/4kQKoKrcJQI

[alan nagsworth]

I would suggest if it is not funny. If I get offended by a joke I'm laughing at then the hypocrisy is on me at least.

Yeah, I can get behind this. Just like I got behind that RELATIVE you loved so much, at their FUNERAL, when I SHAGGED THEM UP THEIR DEAD ARSE.

Ahem.

My two deciding factors are whether or not the joke was poorly constructed for shock factor, and the audience in which the joke finds itself. A good example would be that shite burning model of Grenfell that made the news recently, which is offensive both because it has no substance with which to alleviate the horrific nature of it, and because whoever made it decided to make it a public spectacle. If there were some genuine wit or scathing political point behind it, then I'd have respected it somewhat. Furthermore, if it were cast to a small audience of close friends who understand the lack of malicious intent in its creator and can see beyond that to whatever smart or ironic humour lies within, then there's basically no harm done at all. But it had neither of those qualities, and that's why it was so offensive. It was shite.

[BlodwynPig]

For example if there was a smart reveal, as the tower burned, it was revealed that the building actually represented Dolphin Square and the name was Grenville (as in Janner). And the mob who were burning it were in fact his victims or relatives of his victims.

[rm2kmaster]

Most jokes told by Jerry Sadowitz.

Though he works around it by saying things that are so offensive they frankly veer off into the absurd.

[Dannyhood91]

Most jokes told by Jerry Sadowitz.

Though he works around it by saying things that are so offensive they frankly veer off into the absurd.

I've never heard a single Sadowitz joke. Where do I head them? He's mentioned on here a lot.

[cliff1000uk]

I see it as offense works alongside shock-if you know what to expect from, say, a Jerry Sadowitz gig, than is it shocking or offensive to see him come out dressed as Jimmy Saville?

On the other hand, if during a Missing Person's charity dinner, Chris Barrie fellated a badly drawn e-fit whilst dressed up as Suzy Lamplugh's corpse and mumbled, "Smoke me a Kipper.....", I imagine that there would be a couple of walk outs

[Utter Shit]

A good example would be that shite burning model of Grenfell that made the news recently, which is offensive both because it has no substance with which to alleviate the horrific nature of it, and because whoever made it decided to make it a public spectacle. If there were some genuine wit or scathing political point behind it, then I'd have respected it somewhat. Furthermore, if it were cast to a small audience of close friends who understand the lack of malicious intent in its creator and can see beyond that to whatever smart or ironic humour lies within, then there's basically no harm done at all. But it had neither of those qualities, and that's why it was so offensive. It was shite.

Yeah I'd agree with that. I think (hope) that a lot of groups of friends throw out the most offensive jokes to each other without really meaning to offend; the point is either to push the issue to the point that it becomes silly, or possibly as a sort of "wouldn't it be mad if we were the type of cunts who actually thought these things" acknowledgement that what they are saying is totally unacceptable.

The moment you make those things public, you lose the right to any sympathy when people think you're a cunt - those Grenfell twats can't expect people who don't know them to give them the benefit of the doubt that there was an innocence to what they did.

[rm2kmaster]

I've never heard a single Sadowitz joke. Where do I head them? He's mentioned on here a lot.

You'll not get anything on the net, he's particularly partisan when it comes to having his stuff removed.

[chveik]

You'll not get anything on the net, he's particularly partisan when it comes to having his stuff removed.

there was still a torrent the last time I checked

[rue the polywhirl]

An offensive joke is one that you strongly disagree with or one that strongly challenges your beliefs. Not much more to it than that, surely?

[Hey, Punk!]

An offensive joke is one that you strongly disagree with or one that strongly challenges your beliefs. Not much more to it than that, surely?

This response ultimately frames being offended as something quite inconsequential, rather than the highly painful thing it can be. When a joke dehumanises the group you belong to and demonstrates a complete disregard for your basic subjectivity, it is hard to see that response as being challenged or faced with an opposing opinion. The songs of Johhny Rebel are disgusting and the reaction we have to them is more than a mere disagreement, no matter how strong. I can strongly disgree with a person for liking the later works of Henry James, but I do not find that opinion particularly repugnant.

[Kelvin]

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules, even those ones suggested above. A huge amount of humour relies on some degree of victimisation or mockery, and to go out of your way to avoid offending anyone would mean neutering comedy to the point of near worthlessness. Jokes about Tories will potentially hurt the feelings of Tory voters, jokes about Christianity will very likely cause genuine hurt to some Christians. Episodes of Brass Eye (for example) could likely cause real upset to the people parodied, haters of animal cruelty, or some victims of abuse and racism. Upset is upset, even if you disagree with the reasons, and that pain should be considered by decent, empathic people. 

At some point, though, you have to accept that for much comedy to exist, some degree of offense is acceptable, even required, and that acceptability is based on a huge range of factors, including context, whether the joke is well constructed, who the victim is, how many people are likely to be offended, and whether or not their reasons for being offended are well argued and proportionate.

Increasingly, I think that, more important than whether a joke causes actual offense/upset, what matters is whether a joke teller takes time, before or after, to consider the feelings and arguments of people who might be offended, and whether they still stand by the joke/type of humour. Everyone will have different thresholds, and we need to keep challenging and testing our justifications to offend. Someone who simply doesn't care if what they say upsets people, is, to me, more unpleasant and offensive than someone who knowingly causes offense, but can understand and respect why some people would take issue, and articulate or defend why that level of offense was acceptable to them.   

Oh, and I hate the idea that shock value isn't a valid reason to cause offense with humour. In my view, it absolutely is a valid style of comedy. As are jokes which are infantile, stupid, base or unsophisticated.

[thenoise]

I've never heard a single Sadowitz joke. Where do I head them? He's mentioned on here a lot.

The only bit that is ever on youtube, due to his strict policing of his own copyrights, is this bit from Gobshite calling Savile a paedo, and resulting in the LP being withdrawn from print in case Jimmy tried to sue.  It's not that funny out of context, which is the trouble with quoting Sadowitz or uploading a clip - the offensiveness and rage builds and builds over a couple of hours, it's not so much about the individual jokes.

[up_the_hampipe]

Depends on who is saying it, where it comes from and what the situation is.

Frankie Boyle or Jerry Sadowitz saying something absurdly horrible to an audience that understands that these jokes are separate from reality is a lot different than Jim Davidson making a similar joke born from his prejudices towards certain groups to an audience full of cunts that agree with him.

Of course things are changing in the way people are processing jokes on certain subjects where the Boyle's and Sadowitz's are lumped in with the Davidson's.

[rm2kmaster]

Depends on who is saying it, where it comes from and what the situation is.

Frankie Boyle or Jerry Sadowitz saying something absurdly horrible to an audience that understands that these jokes are separate from reality is a lot different than Jim Davidson making a similar joke born from his prejudices towards certain groups to an audience full of cunts that agree with him.

Of course things are changing in the way people are processing jokes on certain subjects where the Boyle's and Sadowitz's are lumped in with the Davidson's.

I don't even think Sadowitz and Boyle are comparable.

Boyle grins and sniggers at his own jokes which makes him joking about harvey price raping his monther a bit sinister.

Nary a smile draws on Sadowitz face when he screams over and over again that Kim Jong Un is a "yellow, wrong coloured, dog eating piece of chink shit". It just makes him look and sound completely deranged.

Davidson is a altogether a ascended level of bigot. Too much of what he said smacked of an all pervading honesty.

[up_the_hampipe]

Well, that is what I meant. I didn't say Boyle and Sadowitz are the same comedian, they just come from the same place (Scotland lol). Although they are a lot more similar than some "intelligent" comedy fans would ever admit.

[yesitsme]

People say 'You shouldn't go to (say) a Frankie Boyle gig if you don't want be offended' but for me there's some onus on the act to weigh up what his audience are in to.

I've seen so many acts go up and basically do their anti-old people, anti-religion and just general anti-society shtick to a room full of nothing but contempt and silence.

Do you want people to laugh at you or not?

If you're back stage and you can hear it's a crowd in from the local Synogogue you can't really blame the audience if they don't laugh at your 'Hitler shoveling Jews in to a fire routine' no matter how hilarious you think it is.

If you go out in front of that crowd and think 'fuck 'em' that's fair enough but don't get upset because there are some people left with values.

[Autopsy Turvey]

Plan was to say:
1) Context/intent
2) Individual emotional baggage
But then I went all round the houses.

This response ultimately frames being offended as something quite inconsequential, rather than the highly painful thing it can be.

Really, what are the actual consequences of being offended? Sometimes we might flush with anger, sometimes our skin might crawl or stomach turn, but these are harbingers of our own individual emotional problems and we're best off overcoming them if we're to prosper.

When a joke dehumanises the group you belong to and demonstrates a complete disregard for your basic subjectivity, it is hard to see that response as being challenged or faced with an opposing opinion.

But two people from the same 'group' can hear the same joke and react completely differently, which is why this 'oppressor/oppressed narrative' always seems clunkily simplistic. In my experience people prefer to get offended on behalf of someone else's 'group', when it's only the most humourless, self-absorbed and neurotically sensitive minority of any 'group' that is most vociferous about being 'offended', and we shouldn't be pandering to that.

Offence is a very visceral, individual phenomenon, it causes us to examine our own personal boundaries, experiences and sensitivities, but more often people seem to be offended because they've been told what they should find offensive, and then get hyper-vigilant about identifying and complaining about it, possibly as a way of drawing attention to how compassionate and empathetic they are. It's presumably the reason why Talking Pictures TV feels the need to explain "this film contains outdated racial representation" before many of their films. They clearly don't mean that the film contains 'outdated representation' of white English people, even though that's the most glaring truth, it means there might be a Haitian witch doctor or a black chap eating watermelon or something. Who is more likely to complain about being offended, a normal human being or an ideological activist?