I dunno. As an actuary, I often tell an actuary joke. (for instance: How can you tell an extroverted actuary from an introverted actuary? An extroverted actuary looks at your shoes when talking to you.) But I don’t know that I’d appreciate having claims adjusters tell me that joke, even though that’s generally punching up. But depending on how it was told, it might feel like an insult, and not the start of a productive professional relationship.
it would be okay at a dinner party, though.
I also have heard lawyers express displeasure over lawyer jokes. My wife and I are both lawyers. We don’t share those feelings, but who am I to say they are not valid? At least as valid as someone objecting to jokes about their profession/gender/sexual preference/ethnicity/race/religion/etc. It seems odd that someone would say, “Hmm, I don’t object to making jokes about MY profession.” Or, “No x has ever told me that THEY were offended by jokes about X.”
And folk who think all lawyers are wealthy and privileged clearly have not met a wide range of practicing lawyers.
As I see it, the only option is to differentiate between jokes that are so clean that no one could reasonably take offense - the typical “dad jokes”,* and all the rest. There might be some challenges WRT the borders of dad jokes - would an ASPCA supporter take offense at, “What do you call a dog with no legs?”
But other than innocuous wordplay about inanimate objects, SOMEONE could possibly take offense at any joke about the Rabbi and priest, or the Englishman and Irishman who walk into a bar, women/men, tall/short people, etc. Not to mention lepers, dead babies, men with no arms/legs, stupid people, Helen Keller, …
Just struck me as really odd to single out “rape jokes” among the multitude of jokes in that thread that someone could possibly take offense at.
*And don’t get me started at my dislike for the term “dad jokes.” These are exactly the same jokes I found funniest when I was a kid. No one called them dad jokes back then. Googling consistently dates that term back to 1987. I’m a dad and a jokester, and I’m offended by it. Perhaps it should be banned?
By the way, I am not suggesting that lawyer jokes (nor actuary jokes) be banned from the SDMB. Just commenting that they can be hurtful to the subjects.
Rape jokes weren’t the only ones banned. Racist jokes are also strictly forbidden. The difference is that the mods didn’t have to continually intervene to stop people from posting racist jokes. That big “NO RAPE JOKES” note got added because the mods who were dealing with the thread were frustrated that posters KEPT POSTING rape jokes, even after they’d unambiguously been moderated.
Richard Pryor was co-writer on Blazing Saddles. So it was about a cultural group making fun of its persecutors.
I read that thread pretty quickly, so I don’t recall any rape jokes in particular - not to mention repeated instances.
I did think it odd and amusing when the mods got upset about people telling rape(seed) and (g)rape jokes. I thought such wordplay came pretty close to “dad joke” territory. And the repeated warnings and such suggested (to me at least) an excessive sensitivity and lack of humor OBO the mods. But - of course - the mods may not always be right, but they are always the mods.
I found at least 5 rape jokes with a quick search, which is a lot given that the first one was moderated.
The rapeseed and drape and grape jokes were flagged as “complaining about moderation”. Maybe the mods were overly sensitive to that. Still, complaints about moderation belong in this forum.
You posted a rape joke. It’s here.
Looking through the joke thread, I see the express mod note that rape jokes are not allowed. (tho I do not believe the bear having sex with the hunter was flagged.) I believe a mod also said no racist jokes, and that ethnic jokes were not cool (IIRC).
I’m curious how those 3 categories - and only those 3 - were identified as inappropriate?
The example of Jimmy Carr is a particularly interesting one, because he’s just got in a reasonable amount of trouble for a joke about gypsies and the holocaust.
Punchline:
“No one ever talks about the positives”
His fans’ defence of him is that it was part of a show called His Darker Materials and he immediately goes on to deconstruct the joke, explaining why it “works”. But it’s still a joke that gets its laugh from tapping in to UK audiences’ unexamined but deep-seated anti-GRT prejudice. (And the deconstruction bit didn’t do a good enough job of turning the laugh back on the audience and confronting them with their bigotry).
I will strive to do better. Not a joke.
Because women, and people of racial and ethnic minorities, post here, and those jokes make this forum an unfriendly environment.
Whether or not dead baby jokes are offensive or upsetting, they generally aren’t denigrating any board members. (also, if there have been any, I didn’t see them reported.)
Moderator Note
As I said in the last mod note, focus on the issues and let’s not turn any of this into personal attacks/issues.
Sarcasm is rarely helpful in ATMB. If you want to be sarcastic, the Pit is probably a better choice.
I think that “clean”, in the usual sense of “no sex”, is a separate issue from “no jokes told on/against/poking at members of a group”. Because a joke has sexual acts in it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s sexist.
Those jokes were also supposedly funny because of the implied word “rape”. They don’t mean anything otherwise.
Not only are they a jab at the moderation, but they’re supposed to be funny because it’s supposed to be funny to make people think of rape.
I have lawyers in my family and none are astonishingly rich. The point is, what lawyers as a group have is prestige, power, and respect (or perhaps, fear). Things that minority and oppressed groups do not.
Fine. I was using “clean” to denote “inoffensive.” Some people get offended by sex. Others by cuss words. And still others WRT subject matter or “members of a group.”
As I’ve said above and on previous occasions, I have no problem complying with the moderation - whether or not I agree with it in any specific incident.
And I’m sure some/many people will view this as a shortcoming on my part, but I’m not convinced by the arguments made that certain topics are inappropriate subjects for humor. But I have no desire/need to persuade anyone of my position, nor have I any great urge to share any specific jokes here.
Ulfreida was the one that brought up the reason she thought it was ok to tell lawyer jokes. Am I not supposed to mention that? I have nothing personal against her. I was pointing out the flaw in her reasoning.
Somebody needs to get a time machine and go back to 1973 and tell Cecil that. It’s likely every single one of his columns has sarcasm in it. Sarcasm has been a big part of this board from the beginning. I didn’t realize it was forbidden in this forum specifically. If that’s the rule, I apologize, I did not know that.
Then why did you point out laughing all the way to the bank? Were they laughing because they needed loans? Your whole point was it was okay to tell lawyer jokes because they had money.
That may be the way you see lawyers, but for most it just isn’t true. Look at how many lawyers work for legal aid, as public defenders or as government workers. Is that your bar for prestige and power?
About the same for me. I think I shared one joke in that thread and that’s because I had just read it. I almost never remember jokes, so my humor is 99.9% commentary.
My complaint, such as it is, is the seemingly arbitrary groups of people that it’s okay to tell jokes about. No racist jokes, rape jokes - fine, I think everyone is ok with that. But even the punch up/punch down thing is arbitrary. Lawyer jokes are okay, but in order for that to work you have to take as given that lawyers are rich, amoral, powerful people who will do anything to make a buck. And that isn’t even close to true. All that’s happening is that some people are stereotyping lawyers so they can tell demeaning jokes about them. The very same thing that people who object to blonde jokes complain about.
Well, seeing as I don’t tell jokes and do not find them particularly entertaining (I did when I was an age for elephant jokes, but that was a awhile back), I am probably a poor contributor to this discussion. When someone is winding up to tell a joke that is not on themselves or their own group, I mostly dread it. The chance of it being more offensive or nasty than it is amusing always outweighs any pleasurable anticipation.
I never found lawyer jokes very funny, but at least they don’t make me cringe in sympathy for the butt of them. They do not need anyone to be angry on their behalf anyway.
And there’s an important point. Context.
A message board is a hard room to play.
I’ve told one lawyer joke and context was a series of at heaven’s gate gags, from “That’s a hard one. Trumpets blare…” to “That’s just God. Every so often he likes to play doctor.” To “You’re the first we’ve ever got!” And I knew the room.
But as a flip side, ought a MB participant acknowledge that the forum isn’t set up specifically for their personal sensitivities?
In fact that is what happens. Those who expect that the board is set up for their preferences, sensitivities, are being told that they are wrong. This board has made a conscious choice to instead have awareness of the sensitivities of other groups. If any get butt hurt because a joke they want to tell is considered out of line, well this board is not set up for their sensitivities and they can just deal with it. That’s this specific room and no one is forced to play the venue.