Poll: Frankie Boyle challenged over Down's Syndrome joke

[Daveman]

Just because we can doesn't mean we should - and Frankie Boyle really shouldn't have been ripping into folks with Downs syndrome like this. Still, it is only Frankie Boyle, a rather pathetic comedian who can't make people laugh with actual humour, so relies on being a beligerant, bullying asshole. Compare him to Michael McIntyre, who manages to bring the house down laughing every time without being nasty to anyone - not even politicians.

Although Michael McIntyre always says in every show how he looks like a fat Chinese man when he laughs. A very large part of comedy is about shock and that is a lot of what Frankie Boyle plays upon. To say he doesn't use actual humour is ridiculous; if it makes you laugh then it's humour, whatever form it is in. I guess "real" humour could be defined as gags with build up and punchline, but then Michael McIntyre doesn't do that, Jimmy Carr (somebody equally as "insulting" as Frankie Boyle) does however. Fine you might not like him but calling him a "bullying asshole" is just ridiculous.

Arguably there are far worse comedians. Chris Rock constantly tells jokes that can be construed as racist, the fact he he's black that doesn't make the joke funny. What makes it funny is the fact that the joke is not intended as an insult. People need to stop saying how they are offended by certain people unless the offense is intentional. When Frankie Boyle makes a joke about somebody with downs syndrome he does not feel any animosity towards them, he's just making a joke. People who complain should feel bad really because the pity that drives them can be just as insulting.

Aside from that, absolute censorship is rarely a good thing. Just saying "you can't say that" is tyrannical at best.

 

[Calatar]

No, no we shouldnt. Free speech is a rallying banner to every opinion on the planet. Opinions are like assholes everyone has one & no one wants to see anyones elses.

We have this crazy thing called common sense its a whacky way to run a country but its worked so far.


Censorship is the same thing as politicl correctness, just one is thinly veiled and makes middle class white people slightly more comfortable.

Okay... so you're saying you like censorship then, because you don't like being exposed to other opinions? But its okay, so long as it's called political correctness.

(They are actually two completely different terms, one referring to making certain language illegal, and the other referring to careful language designed to avoid offending people. They only mix when political correctness is mandated by law.)

Common sense is no basis for rule of law, seeing as it is a poorly defined term attempting to sum up a complex and varied string of intuitions about given situations. It's not actually a shared commonality among human beings, so whose intuitions get to govern the state?

 

[Look-a-Hill]

He should be banned from comedy for this.
Not because its anything more tasteless than he's already done. It's just a good excuse for him to stop punishing people with his awful comedy .

 

[Thor Doomhammer]

But should somebody popular and infulential, like a comedian, be allowed to make jokes that could perpetuate a negative view of a certain group of people? Would you support a comedian making racist or anti-semetic jokes?

There's nothing wrong with them having a poke at any group, just so long as they were willing to rip on groups they are a part as well. Frankie Boyle tells some pretty harsh Scottish jokes.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

Down's syndrome is a serious condition, and shouldn't be made fun of. When I say that, I mean "It's incorrect, and in extremely bad taste". But there should never be any kind of law saying that it's illegal.

I laugh at those jokes. I laugh, and cry a bit inside, because I know I shouldn't be laughing.

It's the same with those doctor doctor jokes. Some of the people in those have dangerous and seriously bad conditions, and making fun of them just for the sake of a laugh is not right at all.
On topic, freedom of speech. If you can make fun out of religion, patriotism, celebrities and the like, why should you stop there? I have a feeling that soon, comedy will be the only remaining form of free speech, of a fashion of course.

 

[MatsVS]

Free speech is an all-or-nothing kinda deal. You can't have relative free speech. Then it wouldn't be free. So yeah, tell them downies where it's at; it's worth it.

 

[MoNkEyMaFiA]

Its a Frankie Boyle show/set.You MUST know what your going to get.
Thats like me turning up to a Klu Klux Klan rally and
complaining about the racist comments being thrown around.
I'd know I shouldn't be there and wouldn't go.
Pertaining to Mr Boyles show the lady in question should have done likewise.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

But should somebody popular and infulential, like a comedian, be allowed to make jokes that could perpetuate a negative view of a certain group of people? Would you support a comedian making racist or anti-semetic jokes?

Ditto to this.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should - and Frankie Boyle really shouldn't have been ripping into folks with Downs syndrome like this. Still, it is only Frankie Boyle, a rather pathetic comedian who can't make people laugh with actual humour, so relies on being a beligerant, bullying asshole. Compare him to Michael McIntyre, who manages to bring the house down laughing every time without being nasty to anyone - not even politicians.

I am rather more concerned at the results of the poll and at the people defending Boyle in this thread.

Spoiler: to reduce room

Defend that as free speech. If not, explain the difference, other than the fact that people affected with Downs Syndrome are considerably less capable of defending themselves.

He can say it all he wants. I'm familiar with the man, and I'm well within my rights to say I think he's a hateful ignorant douche.
However, there's one major difference between this "preacher" and comedians that some find offensive, like Boyle. This guys serious. I have no problem with people saying anything for comedic value, and I'm not about to say Phelps should be fined or something for saying this. But the reason I don't hate Boyle is because he was joking.
I don't believe either should be punished, because I like free speech. However, you asked for the difference, there it is. One's joking, one's serious.

Right, so one is doing it because it is his earnest belief. The other is doing it because he thinks he can get a laugh out of ripping into people who are disabled. By this logic freedom of speech is only acceptable when you don't actually believe what you are saying, and you know that you are actually talking shit when you say it. And this makes it better?

 

[Blue22]

The man's gotten away with worse. But I wouldn't know the feeling, I've never been offended by him.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Depends. Is he trying to be funny, or mean? The spirit of any joke determines if it's appropriate.

 

[Strykz]

Depends on the joke. I haven't heard it but pushing the boundaries of generic taste is a good thing.

 

[Calatar]

No, no we shouldnt. Free speech is a rallying banner to every opinion on the planet. Opinions are like assholes everyone has one & no one wants to see anyones elses.

We have this crazy thing called common sense its a whacky way to run a country but its worked so far.


Censorship is the same thing as politicl correctness, just one is thinly veiled and makes middle class white people slightly more comfortable.

Okay... so you're saying you like censorship then, because you don't like being exposed to other opinions? But its okay, so long as it's called political correctness.

(They are actually two completely different terms, one referring to making certain language illegal, and the other referring to careful language designed to avoid offending people. They only mix when political correctness is mandated by law.)

Common sense is no basis for rule of law, seeing as it is a poorly defined term attempting to sum up a complex and varied string of intuitions about given situations. It's not actually a shared commonality among human beings, so whose intuitions get to govern the state?

Reductio absurdum are also words.

Yes I do like censorship, thats why I rarely listen to Franky Boyle cause he aint that funny. I 'censor' myself. Aint I awesome. Anyone trying to force their opinions on me will get a good slap in the face, with a boot, which is by far the best form of censorship. Avoidance and violence. 'But its ok if its called PC' indicates to me that you havent read what I typed or indulged in any attempt to read anything else posted.

Sorry explain again how exactly censorship & PC are different. Your explanation was a bit vague & muddled.

Common sense is no basis for law. LMFAO. Common sense is not a shared commonality ? Did you fail Sociology 101 & are trying to compensate here ?

Common sense is by definition the consensual opinion of a society. Its decisions may be morally/intellectually/judgementally (If thats not a word it should be ) right or wrong but it is the exact definition of 'shared commonality'. Whos instituitions get to govern the state ? Are you high ? the society that funds the state. Who did you think?

Tone it down. No need to be a jerk.

First of all, your version of "censorship" is not listening to things you don't like? That's not censorship at all. Censorship is the mandate that NOBODY can listen to the things another says.

Political correctness is the use of mild language designed not to offend people.

Censorship is active muffling, political correctness is non-offensive language. See the difference? It's pretty big. Censorship is a much bigger issue than "censoring yourself" by not paying attention to things you don't like, or "censoring yourself" by avoiding incendiary statements. From what you say, that's what I assume your view of censorship is.

Re: Common Sense
Society very rarely has a consensus opinion on any value, apart from a few base rules. People from different cultures have different values; have differing opinions on nearly all issues.
We tend to share opinion on the golden rule, and have commonality in our brain's response to sensory input; the natural views we form about the physical world around us (which are also typically incorrect or incomplete). While the golden rule is a fine beginning to government, it is not enough to build a full framework. My point is that common sense does not actually exist in the sense you mean. The best we can get is a majority opinion on values. That's called democracy, and it alone does not provide a proper protective system of governance.

How many voices of dissent do there need to be for a value to not be considered "common"? Is there a percentage threshold you have in mind? Should it be unanimous? Just a majority?

Censorship becomes an issue when the majority "common-sense" values conflict with minority values.

 

[brunothepig]

But should somebody popular and infulential, like a comedian, be allowed to make jokes that could perpetuate a negative view of a certain group of people? Would you support a comedian making racist or anti-semetic jokes?

Ditto to this.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should - and Frankie Boyle really shouldn't have been ripping into folks with Downs syndrome like this. Still, it is only Frankie Boyle, a rather pathetic comedian who can't make people laugh with actual humour, so relies on being a beligerant, bullying asshole. Compare him to Michael McIntyre, who manages to bring the house down laughing every time without being nasty to anyone - not even politicians.

I am rather more concerned at the results of the poll and at the people defending Boyle in this thread.

Spoiler: to reduce room

Defend that as free speech. If not, explain the difference, other than the fact that people affected with Downs Syndrome are considerably less capable of defending themselves.

He can say it all he wants. I'm familiar with the man, and I'm well within my rights to say I think he's a hateful ignorant douche.
However, there's one major difference between this "preacher" and comedians that some find offensive, like Boyle. This guys serious. I have no problem with people saying anything for comedic value, and I'm not about to say Phelps should be fined or something for saying this. But the reason I don't hate Boyle is because he was joking.
I don't believe either should be punished, because I like free speech. However, you asked for the difference, there it is. One's joking, one's serious.

Right, so one is doing it because it is his earnest belief. The other is doing it because he thinks he can get a laugh out of ripping into people who are disabled. By this logic freedom of speech is only acceptable when you don't actually believe what you are saying, and you know that you are actually talking shit when you say it. And this makes it better?

I said quite specifically that freedom of speech is "acceptable" at all times. I'm not easily offended, I laugh at inappropriate humour. I hate Phelps for being homophobic. He genuinely believes it, which I think is ridiculous and misinformed. But I don't find it offensive for Boyle to make jokes about people with Downs Syndrome, or anything else. He can say what he wants. Both are free to say whatever they want, but I don't dislike Boyle because he is just saying it as a joke.

 

[quiet_samurai]

I think it's perfectly fine, becaue most mentally retarted people won't know you are making fun of them anyways, and if they do.... then they aren't really retarted.

 

[BrokenIcon]

I think it's perfectly fine, becaue most mentally retarted people won't know you are making fun of them anyways, and if they do.... then they aren't really retarted.

true, yet unfortunate that is. Jokes are also offensive in nature. Think of all your favorite jokes. Damn near everyone of them offends someone somehow. That's partially what makes them funny. If a person can't take the jokes in stride, that person probably shouldn't be attending comedy shows.

 

[Maggie Gee]

Having had a child with disabilities I do take umbridge at jokes like this, however I do defend his right to make the joke. I also defend the right of promoters, BBC etc, and audience members, to make the choice as to should he be paid to make these remarks.

Lots of comics make a living "on the edge" but the ones who have my support are those who make the statement ahead of gig - "My stuff may be considered offensive, if you object, stay away".

 

[Turbulenssi]

Either joke about everything or nothing.