Yes, you explained, and I understood. But asking someone to repeat something removed because it was offensive won’t make it any less offensive despite a different context. It’s like being racist and then saying ‘only joking’.
2 Likes
If something was removed by moderators because it was flagged as offensive, I think it’s pretty clear that it should not be re-posted under any circumstances. Thanks.
3 Likes
That analogy doesn’t make any sense.
I understand, but to be clear, I wasn’t asking to repost the entire “joke”, just the caption, or at least describe enough of it so we know what we’re talking about. Or use a different example as I’ve also mentioned.
Without knowing what it is I can’t judge whether that would still be acceptable or not. The OP would have to make a judgement there regarding clarity of his argument vs what to share.
If I had lost someone due to Covid, I would find such jokes to be inoffensive. I might not find them funny, but that is a different and irrelevant matter.
2 Likes
I’m more than happy to repost MY image and caption that was deleted
It was in response to a previous ( inoffensive ) joke
It was a picture of “the lady in a red dress” from the matrix … with the caption…watch out Neo
That’s it
Nothing more
Totally ridiculous to be removed
Happy to repost …to show just how ridiculous to flag it
2 Likes
Maybe because the character is named Neo rather than Nero?
The comedians. I see no point making the language illegal - if that can ever really be done - but more making sure it is challenged at every opportunity.
Also, no I don’t know the caption and it is not really something i would be interested in trying to remember or even want to. Anything other than the description I have already given is all I recall.
1 Like
Or more likely not
Thanks for the input
One ‘downside’ of the Discourse forum software may be that there are only upvotes / hearts. There is no possibility to downvote unpopular content, whether it’s an ill-conceived joke or bad technical advice.
Reddit’s system for instance shows the up/down vote tally instead of only the upvotes, and it automatically hides posts when their vote balance becomes too low. When people find a post distasteful or offensive they can downvote it, and if it reaches for instance a -3 or -5 score it will be hidden by default (with an option to open it manually).
This would perhaps not be suitable for the type of community we are on here, but it does help to bring a degree of self-moderation and less reliance on moderators removing posts. In a system like that posts would only need to be actively removed when they are really problematic.
I see there is a Naim subreddit too by the way!
https://www.reddit.com/r/naim/
(it’s not very popular apparently… 
)
2 Likes
Who was it that once joked that those who can not apprehend need to be Apprehended ?
I’m not sure I feel insulted , and I will restate that I only posted a reply, to the original post that was deleted
I can only imagine that my post was deleted as a consequence of the first post going
ie it mentioned the fact it existed…and ALL traces MUST be erased after all…
There was probably no flag for my post…so surely that means it must have been a mods decision to “white wash” the whole thing
As for favourites on the site…that’s always going to happen and not a lot the “unfavoured” can do about it
“ Members are asked not to talk about members who are talking about members who are asked to not discuss moderation matters…”
3 Likes
This kind of nonsense always reminds me of the following:
Look, I’ve had a lovely supper and all I said to the wife was ‘That bit of fish was good enough for Jehovah…’
And we all know how that ended.
3 Likes
100% agree, thank you.
Laughs at another group’s expense are cheap.
Yesterday, someone ‘joked’ that he’d been able to afford x because he got married late and didn’t have kids, so didn’t have to spend as much as others on a wife and children.
Joking about spending on children is ok. Joking about spending on a wife is not. We should be well past the age of joking about the wife and what she spends as if income is the primary earner’s (in this case, husband) to control. Just because your name is on the payslip doesn’t mean your partner hasn’t contributed to it.
1 Like
Dear Sir, I love jokes and humor. Love cartoons. Currently here in the US every one has gotten sensitive to the point comedy is endangered. My take is if you dont like something move on. Im not a fan of movies or TV shoehorning a LGBT or person of color into a show that has no continuity.
I grew up on Monty and National Lampoon and can honestly say Ive never been offended by comedy.
3 Likes
if we could perhaps get back to the discussion on comedy, offence and suchlike, rather than moderation issues, it would probably help us continue the more meaty part of the conversation…
Well what’s funny is determined by the spectator, not the comedian. So I’d argue that if your sense of humour is extremely dark or your sensibilities different, the bar for managing to be funny without crossing a line is extremely high.
I think what many people have forgotten, is that anyone offended by a certain topic or humour line can stop reading, switch over, walk out etc. I was always amazed by the complaints that people would send in to the BBC about offensive content. I was always thinking, “Well change the channel on your telly then you great twit!” I don’t really have a problem with people having very different offense thresholds to me. God knows, I can’t even tell a joke in my own home. Mrs. FZ is pretty much offended by everything that makes me laugh. But what actually gets me offended in turn is the need to stamp certain humour out. It strikes me as arrogant and a bit like saying “I find this highly offensive and therefore, by the powers not invested in me, I have decreed that no one should be exposed to this.”. I feel like society has actually become less tolerant, not more. “Tolerance” has been conflated with “censorship”. And that comes in many forms. Both legislative, editorial, and due to cancel culture increasingly self censorship.
The Naim forum is a bit of an exception. There are rules of the road laid out from the outset. Richard has been pretty clear and upfront. The forum is not a free for all. You can’t discuss just anything. Play within the guardrails. The jokes thread always struck me as something was a risky proposition on the forum and to avoid causing offense, I simply don’t contribute to it. There is more at stake in this community than that thread. But if I was a comic going out to entertain people, I’d say what I please.
9 Likes
What is and isn’t funny (possibly seen by some as offensive) is an entirely personal matter. What some might see as offensive, others will see as humorous.
Personally I love silly humour but can still find Jimmy Carr funny, although he can go too far for me. Billy Connelly in his prime was a joy, and possibly one of the few comedians who could swear constantly and get away with it, indeed much of his story-telling style called for the odd expletive. Yet other comedians can use foul language and it just turns me off. Strange.
Comedians and tellers of jokes have some responsibility not to cause offence, but it is all about tailoring comic content to the audience. Equally those who are offended by certain types of comedy can, and should, ignore/bypass/avoid such content. If you go to a Jimmy Carr gig and are offended, it is your fault for going. If a comedian is causing offence on the telly then turn over the channel.
In the jokes thread it is a bit more tricky to manage offence that might be caused. With so many tastes in humour, both on the part of the joke-teller and the reader, the potential for offence to be caused is significant. Hence we have our wonderful moderator.
So which is the greater right? The right of freedom of speech (freedom of joke, if you like), or the freedom not to be offended. Other sensitivities also come into play such as a joke that has discrimination, in all its forms, at its core.
Discuss.
3 Likes
I agree, and my view is that this is a good thing.
Society has become less tolerant of jokes that were at the expense of others and that contributed to those groups of people being oppressed.
For example: there was a great comic routine from Dave Gunson about being an air traffic controller. Most of it was great content. But a few jokes in it made fun of people with dark skin, women and gay people. Those jokes were told, presumably, to appeal to the audience which was predominantly white, wealthy and male. The jokes were unnecessary and, if removed, wouldn’t take away from the otherwise good content.
It’s not enough to say, well, those offended can choose not to listen. Making those jokes gives the perception it is ok to laugh at those people for who/what they are. Many people have spent a lifetime bring laughed at, discriminated against and abused. The last thing they need is for the group enjoying jokes at their expense to be made to feel it’s ok to do it.
Frankly, too, those jokes weren’t funny forty years ago when they were first made. It’s just that now finally we are recognising the harm they cause and standing up against them.
2 Likes