I appreciate that you already understand what I have stated about how context matters. There are an infinite number of contexts.
Basics are simple. Jokes that reinforce stereotypes upon historically disadvantaged or oppressed groups usually not a good idea. If you have good reason to believe that someone in the room will be hurt by the joke think about whether or not hurting that person is a desired outcome. Sometimes taking someone down a notch is the desired outcome so maybe.
Know the room.
This likely suggests ignorance as to much lawyerly thinking. Rather than having an adversarial mindset, perhaps they wish to ensure that everyone agrees on their definitions, and to distinguish between subjective perceptions and objective factors.
Such thinking is not limited to lawyers. In debate, the FIRST thing raised is one’s definitions.
Lawyers understand the importance of clarity. Nonlawyers are generally quite comfortable talking past each other, using vaguely defined terms and relying on their personal opinions, preferences and recollections.
(emphasis in original)
I’m glad to see you eschewing stereotypes, Dinsdale!
Yeah, I think potato salad and some of the other things that were mentioned in the article were applicable to people of any race. The plastic covered furniture thing is certainly also a white trope. More along the lines of really old peoples furniture tho.
And, sorry, nobody makes a good potato salad, much less a sensational one.
I guess different persons might perceive this “room” differently - perhaps on a continuum ranging from a raucous open exchange of diverse opinions, and one more aimed at giving priority to those who are most easily offended. Or a room in which persons can either object to or ignore messages they disagree with, vs one where persons desire certain messages to be prohibited.
That’s fine.
WRT to lawyer jokes, if you prick us, do we not bleed? 
So, just to be clear. Are you saying all racist jokes are BOTH asshole AND oppressive?
Whereas lawyer jokes are merely asshole?
I honestly misunderstood you to suggest that some racist joes were asshole jokes, and some were oppressive (the view I take.)
I think this represents a misunderstanding. It’s not about who is easily offended, as a “this person” thing. It’s about which groups tend to be subjected to offensive content about themselves.
We don’t have a plethora of jokes about women castrating men here. We do have a plethora of jokes about men raping women. Coincidence? Of course not.
Sure. And I never said these boards were at the extreme of a continuum. But within every group, different people will have different perceptions of what is or isn’t funny/acceptable/fighting words/etc. In desiring to encourage a civil exchange of disparate views, I acknowledge the desirability of skewing towards the snowflake end to encourage them to express their views. On the whole, these boards do an exceptional job of balancing different sensibilities.
Honestly I read those who melt down over being told that some groups of jokes that they are used to being able to tell are not acceptable here as being the snowflake end. They are just so used to every room being a room catering to their specific sensitivities that a different room is hard to accept. The choice is to not skew to those snowflakes.
If I warm you do you not melt? 
Analyzing humor is rarely funny and I’m thinking the lawyer discussion is already pretty well litigated. But it is worth understanding what motivates lawyer jokes. Obviously it is not to dehumanize and further other an oppressed group or to by way of jokes justify violence against lawyers. It’s the simple fact that the system often allows the more powerful to hire the biggest lawyer guns and those outside of the top 0.1% are left fairly powerless. It’s the fact that there are frivolous suits that serve no function other than greed. Is every lawyer a mercenary who will use their skills to work the system in whatever direction pays them the most? Of course not. There are those referenced who work diligently defending human rights at great risk, who heroically take on immigration cases for little money, and other noble cause. Those who help the rank and file do necessary things. But enough people have experienced lawyers that way that the jokes exist as a means to fight back. Even while overall the profession is highly respected.
My lawyer is a great guy. Your lawyer is an evil prick.
Eh, I think a lot of people like to think their lawyer is an evil prick, and that that is a good thing. (n.b. Dad was a lawyer, and not a prick at all. Two brothers are lawyers, one is not a prick, the other is a bit (but not evil as far as I can tell.)
I agree with that. It really is most often the sense I get of what’s going on in such discussions.
– I do think that some of the lawyer jokes may be motivated by fear: the joke teller figures that if they wind up in court, they’re likely to come out of it poorly, whether or not they were at fault. But it does occur to me to wonder: are jokes that attack lawyers more commonly told by those less privileged, or is it the other way around?
It’s pretty lame and boring at this point. It’s pretty played out.
So that’s one interpretation. And I’m no Shakespeare scholar. But those more learned than I am think that take is one attractive to lawyers and judges but not necessarily clearly supported by the text.
Personally I go with it being a lawyer joke. Aimed as a jibe at lawyers present and given that Shakespeare also was appealing to low brow crowds with c-word puns and the like, also for those in the audience who experienced lawyers as indeed defending the rights of wealthy property owners, but not theirs. I’d bet on it having been a laugh line in the room it was played in.
Jokes?
A post was merged into an existing topic: More Jokes
Excellent point, IMHO. We tend to associate “snowflake” with “put-down (unfair or not) of a social justice warrior as overly sensitive,” but it works equally well — better, I think, for its challenge of assumptions — as an equivalent observation about many of the privileged.
Garrison Keillor once told this joke:
“Why does Michael Jackson like twenty-eight-year-olds?”
“Because there’s twenty of them.”
Serious question - would this be a no-no here on the Dope, as it alludes to inappropriate touching of children? Or is it okay because it’s about the likely behavior of a celebrity? Or because it doesn’t mention rape, really, but more a fondness?
Anyway, I thought it was interesting that the Bard of the Prairies didn’t give if a second thought (nor his audience). This would have been circa 2005.
(I think it’s a clever and funny play on words).
So I’m chatting to this 14 year old on the Internet…
She is funny, flirty, sexy and intelligent and now she’s telling me she’s an undercover cop. How cool is that at her age!
Here’s a recent one from that thread. Now, I think that’s a pretty funny joke. But I could imagine folk finding that AT LEAST as inappropriate as a fireman suggesting a woman ought to have sex with him to be rescued.