lisadagz said:
Not everyone is intelligent enough to be able to separate "We don't think this is really the case, we are laughing ironically" and "Jews need to die and women deserve to be raped hurr hurr".
Forgive me for singling this out. I'm constrained by time, but I'd really like to answer. I feel that the points you make about the risk of normalising via joking rape, racism and misogyny among other things hinges on a particular demographic, so I've chosen the above sentence because I think it makes reference to that demographic.
Now... I think the above quoted is absolutely true. I've met a lot of dull eyed, bovine, quasi-sentient imbeciles in my time. But why should I moderate the sort of jokes that get made by and around me on account of the feeble psychological limitations of the lowest common denominator? I don't think it's right to expect anyone to conform to a level of expression that protects the stupid from being inappropriately influenced.
Or that's what my gut says. I'd love to leave it at that, but I anticipate (and accept) the counter point that we have to live with these demi-apes after they've been so influenced, and that certain ideas will inevitably make them more of a nuisance to us and each other. Dangerous, even. I don't know what the answer is*, but I don't think drawing a line in the sand that ironic or black humour mustn't cross is it.
I accept that mockery of a minority or the other sex constitutes actual harm- as a type of psychological warfare. I accept this because that's prejudiced behaviour, quite different and ethically distinct from joking. I also accept that the argument you might be expecting me to make- about victims mistaking one for the other- is invalid because of the ease with which genuine culprits of prejudice can drag humour out as a defense. I agree, so I won't be fielding that brand of infantry.
Instead, I'll ask you something. *Is it possible to have a public policy governing humour(?) that is inclusive of the sensibilities of all people without prohibiting subjects, like ethnicities or sexes(?) that avoids constraint of those who are mature and, frankly, sapient enough to entertain controversial humour for the moral wellbeing of those people who aren't? And further to the lattermost question, does that just depend which category of person is in the majority?
That's the series of questions I'm failing to answer when I say that I don't know what the answer is. Do you?