Trump

[gumboot]

Probably one of few people in politics[*] (outside of Australia) worse than Trump. His antics got a lot worse later on.


[*] kind of a stretch, but one needs to stretch things to find someone

[KlaxonCow]

Just posting this alternative clip, as that one you posted is restricted in the UK because Channel 4 have copyright over it.



(Fair play to the presenter, as he calmly maintains his professionalism, which just makes the episode all the more hilarious, really.)

[CableTwitch]

So this isn't funny then?

[Little stoned kiwi]

Does laughing at Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles make me racist?

Alright! We'll take the niggers and the chinks, but we DON'T WANT the Irish!

[pogo]

In 2007, Trump was forced to face his own falsehoods. And he did, 30 times. - Washington Post

And then there‘s today’s garbage from his own mouth: “Isis is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of Isis.”

Problem is not only it nonsense, but if anyone is responsible for the rise of Isis it’s the last Republican president, supported by Trump at the time. And the candidate that despots, nutcases and extremists around the world support? Donald Trump. About the only people outside the US who want Trump elected are its enemies, like Isis, who look forward to him being elected as a weak, ineffective US suits them perfectly.

So chances are this will backfire on him too, as everyone other than most indiscriminate supporters will simply be reminded of another way Trump is the wrong person for the job of president.

[Darkflame]

There's certainly jokes to be made around race or cultural differences without the goal being to demean or present one as inferior.
And, of course, there's also racist that hide behind "just joking" to shield themselves. No question there.

Generally speaking racists joke arnt even that specific to culture or people, and instead the same joke can be used interchangeably for any group you think your audience will enjoy making fun of. Racist joke tellers will keep focusing on one race.
A comedian that happens to use race in a joke, however, is unlikely to follow up with a bunch more. So normally its pretty easy to spot one from the other.

[gumboot]

Shows like Till Death do Us Part (I assume) and All in the Family are full of 'racial' jokes, but the butt of the joke is racism, not a race. It's only Poe's Law that makes a racist joke inextricably racist.

[pogo]

He’s thinking about what he will do after the election.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/polit ... index.html

Look, all I do is tell the truth, I'm a truth-teller. All I do is tell the truth, and if at the end of 90 days I've fallen short because I'm somewhat [not] politically correct even though I'm supposed to be the smart one and even though I'm supposed to have a lot of good ideas, it's OK. I go back to a very good way of life. It's not what I'm looking to do. I think we're going to have a victory. But we'll see. Just keep doing the same thing I'm doing right now and at the end, it's either going to work or I'm going to, you know -- I'm going to have a very, very nice, long vacation.

Seems the polls are getting to him. This is him being honest, about what might happen in November. But it’s appalling politics; even when you are almost certain to lose you should never admit it’s a possibility, you should always say you will win. Many voters, donors and fellow Republicans are only supporting him as they think he can win. Any doubt will make them reassess their support, especially if the doubt comes from the candidate.

And, just in case there was any doubt, he’s not changing course. The implication of the above is even if it loses him the election he’s not going to change his approach. Another reason for Republicans to throw up their hands in despair and concentrate on House and Senate races, or make plans for elections after this one.

[gumboot]

But it’s appalling politics; even when you are almost certain to lose you should never admit it’s a possibility, you should always say you will win.

Well that just goes to show what integrity he has that even in that situation he simply cannot say something that isn't true. Obviously we need him now more than ever!

[pogo]

Integrity? Here’s that WP article again:

In 2007, Trump was forced to face his own falsehoods. And he did, 30 times.

One characteristic of his lying is it’s so offhand, so thoughtless, often over the most minor and easily refutable matters. He seems simply not to care whether what he says is true or not, he just says the first thing that comes into his head and moves on.

But that’s getting harder and harder to do with the polls. He was happy with them during the primaries, and referred to them again and again, and to his opponents polls, to rub home he was winning and they losing. Polls and his popularity are central to his argument that he can win. So it must be a major blow to his confidence that Clinton is doing so well in the polls, must prey on his mind much of the time.

And Clinton is doing very well right now. She is pretty much doing as well as is possible; recent elections in the US have been very close, won by typically only a few %, and Clinton’s 8%+ lead is as good as anything achieved since Ronald Reagan. Even if that lead is halved by election day it would be a convincing win.

[gravy]

Shows like Till Death do Us Part (I assume) and All in the Family are full of 'racial' jokes, but the butt of the joke is racism, not a race. It's only Poe's Law that makes a racist joke inextricably racist.

If you're going to take the praise for making people laugh you've probably also got to take the responsibility of any unintended but likely outcomes.

A lot of people don't get nuance and some willing to ignore it to get some validation for views on the border of social acceptability.

Net effect is all that matters. You can be funny without running the risk of making grist for twats mills. That means losing a load of shit jokes but some good ones too.

[gumboot]

If you want to put a stop to jokes people are too thick to get you're going to put an awful lot of people out of work and we'll be left with little more than slapstick, Bean, and crisp packets.

[Darkflame]

Look, all I do is tell the truth, I'm a truth-teller. All I do is tell the truth,

He is trolling surely?

[gravy]

If you want to put a stop to jokes people are too thick to get you're going to put an awful lot of people out of work and we'll be left with little more than slapstick, Bean, and crisp packets.

I don't

But it's like alcohol, not banned but acknowledged as a poison and tread carefully.

Quite honestly I'm happy for the status quo; jokes get made that may have a questionable effect and there's a considerable response pointing it out rather than banning anything.

The undercurrent I'm getting here is objection isn't a valid position but I'm think it's a necessary counterbalance.

[KlaxonCow]

Also, these examples haven't really been "racist jokes". Their humour is by negative example and, thus, are actually anti-racist jokes.

The gag with Brent is that he is a little bit racist and homophobic, in truth, but he's, most of all, a horrible narcissist always looking for constant approval from everyone, so he's trying to be "right on" to get everyone's approval and, well, we're laughing at a racist / homophobe failing miserably to hide his prejudices.

With "going for an English", that's straight up parody. Taking the stereotypical behaviour of the English drunkard at an Indian restaurant and role reversing it all, so that you can see, with new eyes, just how much of an obnoxious little twat people like that actually are. Again, not at all racist, but anti-racist. Indeed, to pull off that joke, you've got to be able to "translate" between both cultures to make it work - have a keen understanding of the cultural commonalities - and be funny for all, so an actual racist would simply not have the awareness to be able to do it.

Or something like Sasha Baron Cohen's "Ali G" and his "is it 'cos I is black?". All of his comedy characters are, of course, based on dramatic irony. We, the viewer, realise that they're fictitious characters but the idiots he's talking to don't. Indeed, the whole point with Ali G is that he's very clearly a fucking white man, doing a touch of "cultural appropriation". That's why "is it 'cos I is black?" is perfectly ridiculous, as he's not black. But - and here's where his comedy beautifully does the whole "social commentary" thing - it's how people react to it.

So afraid of being labelled "racist", no-one ever says "but you're not black". Indeed, if you want to get philosophical, there are different shades of skin colour and, yes, it can sometimes not be at all obvious if someone is or isn't "black". They're not sure and don't want to make a mistake. But - think about it - if you're not even sure what race someone is, can you really be racist towards them? Because, of course, the other aspect of "is it 'cos I is black?" is simply that he always claims it in circumstances where it clearly has nothing to do with race at all. That's the absurdity we're laughing at.

Mind you, I wouldn't call Sasha Baron Cohen's comedy there - with Ali G or Borat - as "anti-racist humour", per se. It is exactly the kind of negative example I'm talking about, though. Borat is horribly anti-Semitic. But it's a mockery of such stupidity. Clearly so, Cohen is himself Jewish. So it is making those anti-racist points. But he's also operating at a whole higher level, because there's social commentary and satire weaved into it all. It is anti-racist humour - yes, oddly enough, when you look at Borat, but the point is that he's lampooning racism through the obvious stupidity of the character and using the character to expose the ridiculous racism of other people who bizarrely accept and tolerate this ridiculous caricature - but it's doing a lot more than that too.

Or, put simply, "race + jokes" does not mean "racist comedy".

There are positive and negative examples. A character might be in a story to show you a positive example - a role model, a hero, someone who always does the right thing - but they can also be in a story to show you negative example - an anti-role-model, a villain, someone who always does it wrong and suffers the consequences of doing so.

Indeed, negative example is socially important, I'd say. Because telling the story of a racist, who then gets their comeuppance and suffers the consequences of such stupidity, is the harmless way to teach people these lessons, without any actual genuine racism occurring. It's the entertaining way to do it. We can all laugh at "going for an English" and no actual racism really occurred and no-one was harmed in the making of the sketch. But, hey, we can wonder how many people, after watching that sketch, might have go on to be more self-aware of their behaviour when they have gone for an Indian.

It's one of the unique human capacities. We can learn by doing, of course. But we can also learn by listening too.

The most simple example. You're using a circular saw for the first time. You have no experience to know any lessons about it. But you're told how to operate it safely, you can read the safety instructions, you can heed the advice to wear safety equipment and you can operate it safely - and have learnt these safety lessons for every subsequent time you might use it - without requiring, you know, accidentally sawing your arm off to gain the direct experience of what you should and shouldn't be doing.

Newton, innit? "If I have seen further, it's only because I was standing on the Shoulders of Giants".

That's really the unique aspect about humans that has elevated us up out of the Animal Kingdom. Other animals can learn and teach. But the lessons learnt are lost with every generation, as the method of conveying it can only be direct experience for them. But we worked out this lovely thing called "language", which means we can transfer information - lessons - to each other by talking and reading.

I mean, that's how I know that Newton quote, right? He was long dead by the time I arrived in this existence. But, through language, it can be written down and I can read it back later. We can talk to each other and pass on these quotes (as I'm doing here or the £2 coin does around its edge, as that also reads "shoulders of giants" too).

The literalists unfortunately ruin this really rather good and important mechanism. Comedy is not an entirely frivolous pursuit, as satire is often the best gorram way to get a point across. Story-telling traditionally has its "moral of the story" at the end - because the medium was the original method of oral conveyance of information. Humans love a good story. It's our rather unique "extra mechanism", that the rest of the Animal Kingdom lacks, for learning lessons, passing on vital information, considering philosophy, etc. beyond the generational barrier that would otherwise kill it off, as it does for every other animal.

Although, whilst there is an obvious need to teach lessons and provide information with children - as they're picking it all up for the first time and need to be informationally prepared for adulthood - stories and jokes are not just for children. We could all do with a bit of "life-long learning" going on. It should never end, until you eventually drop dead, right?

This is what I lament in the modern era. Many people seem to have lost their capacity for nuance. Everything is taken so gorram literally and it's all so black-and-white. There's no room to manoeuvre. No shades of grey. Even if a joke is racist, there's still things to be understood from it.

I support freedom of speech, you see, because you'd simply be an idiot not to do so.

"The Emperor is naked". But who benefits most from that kid in the crowd's indiscretion to just blurt that out than the Emperor himself? Yes, let the kid speak, because the kid is opening the Emperor's eyes to the fact that he's been hoodwinked all along. Opening the Emperor's eyes to how perfectly untrustworthy his "advisers" really are, as they never told him any such thing.

In the moment, the Emperor will be embarrassed. His ego bruised. His cock out for all the lads.

But, beyond that, best thing ever for the Emperor that the kid had the freedom of speech to tell him something that, sure, he didn't really want to hear. But it was the truth and, by knowing the truth, the Emperor could correct this horrible mistake that he's prancing about naked.

We must have the wisdom to allow freedom of speech - even shit we don't want to hear and, in fact, most especially shit we don't want to hear - because, if we have got it all wrong, then it's going to be some blunt bastard indiscreetly pointing it out that's going to save us from our own ignorance.

Freedom of speech is not simply nice, it's perfectly necessary. We must allow "you're wrong" because sometimes we are wrong and we need to know about it in order to rectify the situation and endeavour to be more right. Underlying it all, it's as simple as that, really.

Science has done so well because it's gone as far as formalising that entire process, so you publish your theories and then others happily shoot them down in flames. But, of course, if they can't be shot down, then we're one step closer to the truth. Rinse and repeat, slowly stepping towards the destination of a complete understanding of the whole truth (no, we're never actually going to reach that destination, as it's an ideal, but let's get as damned close to it as possible, yes?).

A great scientist loves it when his theory's trashed, a little more than when he's proved right.

It just means that there's all the more to be learnt again. ;D