50 women raped in the Rep. of Congo per...

Nodin

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Actually, the rapes in Scandinavia are, as the facts state, conducted by Christians as well as Muslims. What the rapists have in common is that they are migrants from third world countries, including the Congo, where a culture of sexual assault on women is tolerated.
You're still attempting to smear facts as racist. It's a bizarre thing to seek to do. I understand you don't like what they say, and nor do I. But they're real, and trying to wish them away brings no one any closer to resolving the problem.

I was attempting primarily to discuss the OP.

Aldito

This is disgraceful, that's not nearly enough

mod: banned

B_Fanatic

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I disagree. It doesn't matter to the victims why a culture of rape pervades or how it originated. That brings them no closer to justice and makes them no safer.

Tell me, how can you destroy the root of a problem without knowing where or what it is? No, you're right. Finding its source WON'T bring them to justice but it most definitely WILL make them safer once people find it and act upon it. All you're doing is debating why we shouldn't be trying to find the source of the problem and throwing in some facts about how all third world countries have considerably higher rape rates than the developed world...

Which is fine because it's certainly true - however, it's completely irrelevant and would seem to contradict your previous statement that what Nordin is saying brings the victims no closer to justice or safety. Tell me, how are you contributing any more than he is? In fact, the more I think about the more this seems like the kind of argument I regularly have with one of my friends. We spend hours arguing with each other and then at the end decide we were either arguing two completely unrelated topics or that we were basically just shouting opinions at each other and not actually disagreeing with one another.

I should probably read some more of your other posts but I really should be studying.

Cavehill Red

B_Fanatic wrote: »

I should probably read some more of your other posts but I really should be studying.

I agree.

Kimia

Isn't it just heartbreaking. I'm watching the Ross Kemp documentary now and it's horrific stuff. Noone seems to give a shít either. If the US care so much about evil and terror in the world with their lies about Afganistan and Iraq, why don't they look towards Africa. I know that there's no oil there but if they are using that an as excuse, why can't they be directed towards areas like the Congo where women are being destroyed. I can't believe a human being is able to inflict agony on someone else like that.

Why does noone care about Africa? Why can't the rest of the world step in and go to war with these people to stamp this insanity out? I know my questions probably come across really stupid but I'm just throwing it out there, is there anything that can be done?

Dudess

whiteonion wrote: »

TIA, this is Africa. Did you expect that continent to be civilized?

Hmmm... be slightly more specific there dude, if you can manage it. It is one country - not all of Africa. Africa has a population of approximately one billion. Are you... ok with the stupidity of the stuff you write?

whiteonion wrote: »

OK, it's fair to assume that you consider Africa as a whole and Congo to be civilized then?

No it isn't fair to assume that at all, strawman-fan. There's no such indication that it's a fair assumption. Obviously Africa does have a lot of serious problems scattered throughout it (as well as plenty of parts that don't have such problems) but what you and your thankers want to do is use this to justify looking down on Africans. Bet you love it - you certainly don't seem to give a sh1t about the victims anyway. If being uncivilised is part of the African condition though, why care about them...

If you consider Africa to be so civilized why don't you live there for a while, maybe you'll change your mind. I myself have been to Africa and found it quite uncivilized

Where did they say they consider Africa so civilised? Why are you resorting to a nine-year-old's argument? If someone complains about the weather here, would you tell them to go and live in a sunny country? And you saw all of Africa on a trip? Now that is impressive. I don't believe you went to Africa at all though - where did you go? Maybe you were in a plane that flew over it?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

But the Congo is none of these. It is the very definition of uncivilised, and no lemon-sucking political correctness is going to change that any time soon.

It's not political correctness. Cavehill Red, I don't understand why you resort to that phrase in the wrong contexts - you seem more intelligent than that. Political correctness is about tiptoe-ing around when it comes to the slightest thing, for fear of causing offence. whiteonion and walshb's comments are just knuckle-dragging - they involve little to no thought. They are the product of "What do you expect from the blacks?" type thinking, despite plenty of blacks not being capable of such horror and actually falling victim to it. And it is wrong to blame an entire country (continent in the above geniuses' case) for the actions of a minority, even if a significant one. Some of them rape because they are brutes (found in every corner of the globe), some of them rape because they were brutalised themselves and are dehumanised, some of them rape because they are ordered to - these reasons are only the tip of the iceberg. It is a complex issue. I'm not saying they are justified (obviously - but someone silly would probably come along and say I am) however an explanation is an explanation. I agree the blame can't be placed squarely at the foot of colonisation, but it does have its roots in it. I studied African politics - it's a fact. I'll also fully agree misogyny, and a contempt for non macho men is somewhat cultural too, but that doesn't mean there aren't countless Africans who don't subscribe to that and who suffer because of it. However some people on this thread want to reduce it to "It's because they're black". That idiocy deserves all the contempt it gets.

orourkeda wrote: »

We're here to talk about the suggestion\statistic of 50 rapes per hour in the congo. Why are you attempting to gloss over this by playing the race card?

The people who are using this as an opportunity to say "See? This is what the blacks are capable of!" are the ones glossing over it.

orourkeda wrote: »

So why are we trying to derail the thread from the not so outrageous assumption that we all agree on.

We don't "all" agree on it actually...

LighterGuy wrote: »

Best post that sums it up.

No it isn't.

You cant say anything anymore without being called a racist :rolleyes:

Yes you can - "rolleyes".

LighterGuy wrote: »

Lets just be totally honest. Or shall I be the one to be totally honest? Africa is a kip. Yes, sure there are nice places on the continent. But look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Africa

So many counties. All one continent and having known african people I've heard the stories too.
Its sad about these rapes. Its a terrible act. But Africa isnt the 'nicest place on earth' to put it softly.
and no i am not racist before someone claims I am :rolleyes:

Nobody's saying there aren't terrible places in Africa, so... your point?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Hence the cultural clash when people come from places like the Congo to places like Scandinavia and start raping all round them.

Lol... Like reading Richard Littlejohn - you sure as hell leap between left and right. If this is a problem, it is a problem... but why specifically Scandinavia?

nacho libre

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

" nacho libre, it's hard to imagine rape victims making rape jokes tbh. I've never known one to do so. Were you also suggesting that people who perhaps work with rape victims as part of their daily job may make rape jokes on an internet thread about mass rape as a tool of war in the Congo, in order to relieve stress?

No i wasn't suggesting that. I was talking about my own personal experiences.
I;ve encountered people who have had harrowing experiences that joke about it. As strange as it may seem, a female friend who confided in me that she was raped, has a curious attitude to it and used to make what I perceived as in appropriate comments, but i saw in time it was obviously her way of coping with it.
Then there is another friend, who lost someone close to her by suicide, who also make jokes about the subject.
Also another friend who was roaring her head off laughing while her mother was in psychosis
This is i presume not the way everyone reacts, but the point is some people have different ways of coping. While their behaviour maybe seen as distasteful and utterly wrong to many, you can't anticipate how people respond to crises. I read an interview recently with a guy who used to be in a band, who uses dark humour to relieve the stress of his job as an emergency worker.
So the point i'm struggling to make is, humour, in the final analysis, is a defense mechanism. It doesn't necessarily mean those using humour are bad and inconsiderate people in my opinion.

LeeHoffmann

nacho libre, I understand your point better now. Thanks for clarifying! I accept your point that humour isn't only used to denigrate others - my expression was at fault there - I didn't mean to imply that. I can understand people who've been through a particular traumatic experience (e.g. rape, loss of loved one to suicide etc) making a joke about that experience when in the company of friends who know about whatever happened and would likely understand where he/she is coming from. However, I would seriously doubt that somebody who has been raped would click into an internet thread about mass rape in order to make rape jokes with strangers

Humour can be a defense mechanism but obviously it's used for many other purposes too. I think that the purpose of people who make rape jokes on internet threads is not stress relief/coping mechanism etc, rather it's to interfere with serious discussion and make light of an important issue that causes suffering to other people

LighterGuy

Dudess wrote: »

Yes you can - "rolleyes".
&
Nobody's saying there aren't terrible places in Africa, so... your point?

one, alot of people confuse a person being racist when they are just quoting the truth. If you need examples, plenty on boards.ie

and two, you agree there are alot of places that are terrible. Well, what do you think happens in terrible places? ... rapes are one of the terrible acts that happen. Thats my point.

nacho libre

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

nacho libre, I understand your point better now. Thanks for clarifying! I accept your point that humour isn't only used to denigrate others - my expression was at fault there - I didn't mean to imply that. I can understand people who've been through a particular traumatic experience (e.g. rape, loss of loved one to suicide etc) making a joke about that experience when in the company of friends who know about whatever happened and would likely understand where he/she is coming from. However, I would seriously doubt that somebody who has been raped would click into an internet thread about mass rape in order to make rape jokes with strangers

Humour can be a defense mechanism but obviously it's used for many other purposes too. I think that the purpose of people who make rape jokes on internet threads is not stress relief/coping mechanism etc, rather it's to interfere with serious discussion and make light of an important issue that causes suffering to other people

I think even though people you describe are using humour as some sort of defense mechanism, whether it be to reinforce their own prejudices, or as a means to stave off dealing with a issue emotionally. They may find it hard to deal with their emotions in real life. The more intelligent a person is they'll tend to use rationalization techniques to ward off dealing with an issue on a emotional level. They may also tend to scoff/ridicule people who respond to something on an emotional level. The less intelligent will just makes bad jokes, but the motivation behind such jokes is most likely the same.

LeeHoffmann

using humour as some sort of defense mechanism, whether it be to reinforce their own prejudices, or as a means to stave off dealing with a issue emotionally.

First, using humour to reinforce one's own prejudices is an entirely separate motive/purpose to using humour as a defence mechanism. Secondly, you talk about this as though they were standing around with a bunch of people who brought up a difficult, uncomfortable and upsetting topic and then they reacted to it badly to cope with the stress of the conversation. That's not the case here. These people saw a thread entitled '50 women raped in the Congo per hour' and chose to click into that thread, maybe have a read and post one or more rape jokes. If they found the topic too disturbing, they should have (and likely would have) a) not clicked into the thread, or b) left the thread without posting rape jokes that would intefere with the conversation and probably upset a lot of people.
So again, I don't think people posted rape jokes because of a coping mechanism

Morlar

I am not sure you can lay down specific rules, about precisely what any persons motives are, in cracking a joke about any given subject.

LeeHoffmann

Ok. What do you think the intentions were?

Dudess

LighterGuy wrote: »

alot of people confuse a person being racist when they are just quoting the truth. If you need examples, plenty on boards.ie

Some people do cry racism for spurious reasons, yes, but nowhere near as many as the people who say "You can't say anything without being called a racist these days - it's political correctness gone mad!" (see my sig).
Now I'm sure, if you go back and read that person whiteonion's post, you will see it for what it is - dumbfuckery. "Do you expect Africa to be civilised?" is a textbook definition of racism. It says "What do you expect from Africans?" - all billion of them, and the children and the women who are raped, and the men who don't do uncivilised stuff.

you agree there are alot of places that are terrible. Well, what do you think happens in terrible places? ... rapes are one of the terrible acts that happen.

Huh? What relevance does that have? Nobody disagrees with you...

LighterGuy

Dudess wrote: »

Some people do cry racism for spurious reasons, yes, but nowhere near as many as the people who say "You can't say anything without being called a racist these days - it's political correctness gone mad!" (see my sig).
Now I'm sure, if you go back and read that person whiteonion's post, you will see it for what it is - dumbfuckery. "Do you expect Africa to be civilised?" is a textbook definition of racism. It says "What do you expect from Africans?" - all billion of them, and the children and the women who are raped, and the men who don't do uncivilised stuff.

Its not dumb****ery as you say. Its just the way it is, or at least on here. Alot of people are quick to misinterprete a persons post, especially when it comes to race. One of the best examples can be if a user posts something about nigerians and their scams - boom! you always get racist accusations. Even if the poster in question was only referring the percentage who do scam. Its taken that you meant "all nigerians" ... thus making you a racist in anothers eyes.

Dudess wrote: »

Huh? What relevance does that have? Nobody disagrees with you...

you quoted me remember >> (your first quote of me)

Dudess wrote: »

Nobody's saying there aren't terrible places in Africa, so... your point?

If anyone should be typing the " " smilie it should be me. You quote me saying whats my point. i say my point again (certain african countries are dives and this comes with it) ... then you say whats your point again with your " " .... so dudeness you are agreeing with me, but at the same questioning me

Dudess

LighterGuy wrote: »

Its not dumb****ery as you say. Its just the way it is, or at least on here.

"What do you expect from that continent?" is idiocy - and you well know it is.

Alot of people are quick to misinterprete a persons post

A lot of people are familiar with whiteonion's posting history - seriously, do yourself a favour and don't align yourself with that individual. There's no reading wrongly into anything here - his post was pure hate-filled. I agree with you there can be allegations of racism when it's not warranted, but that is not one of them.

One of the best examples can be if a user posts something about nigerians and their scams - boom! you always get racist accusations. Even if the poster in question was only referring the percentage who do scam. Its taken that you meant "all nigerians"

Posting about recurring scams carried out by Nigerians is fair enough - it is just commentary on observation. But knuckledragging "The Nigerians... scum" comments which then always follow demonstrate a lack of thought. Some people don't believe in making the assumption that the Nigerians, as a nation, are therefore dodgy - even if scams are carried out a lot. The population of that country is too immense to make such a call. It's not "to be PC", it's just not wanting to blame people who don't deserve it. Like many Irish were.

you quoted me remember >> (your first quote of me)

If anyone should be typing the " " smilie it should be me. You quote me saying whats my point. i say my point again (certain african countries are dives and this comes with it) ... then you say whats your point again with your " " .... so dudeness you are agreeing with me, but at the same questioning me

No, I really don't understand what the relevance is of "Bad things happen in Africa, including rape". Where did anyone dispute that? But that doesn't make what whiteonion said correct or fair.

LighterGuy

you really dont like white onion dont you? :pac:

Dudess

I've actually gone easy on him up to now! :pac:

CongoPowers

Hmm. My choice of username suddenly seems unfortunate.

x in the city

whiteonion wrote: »

TIA, this is Africa. Did you expect that continent to be civilized?

the continent of africa is one massively f**ked up place.

ghana, lagos, the list goes on.

Morlar

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Ok. What do you think the intentions were?

There is no requirement to decipher the intentions of an internet randomer in order to hold the view that 'I am not sure you can lay down specific rules, about precisely what any persons motives are, in cracking a joke about any given subject. '

LeeHoffmann

I didn't say there was any such requirement Morlar. Please answer the question

Morlar

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I didn't say there was any such requirement Morlar. Please answer the question

No.

Unlike you, I would not presume to know why person X make jokes about subject Z.

People do not fit into little categories, of 'this person made a joke about subject Z this means that . . . . ' There could be a completely random reason, they could have seen a movie the night before which made them think of something funny. They could have wanted to make a joke but not been able to think of any. You can't just cram people into categories, of 'this person made a joke about subject X therefore I can extrapolate that they are bli-blu-blu-bla-bla-bla.'

LeeHoffmann

wow seriously hostile tone there! So you don't generally hypothesise about peoples' intentions/motives for their actions and words? that would be strange indeed. I think it was clear that I was saying 'in general' not that I can account for every single rape joke ever made with 1 reason

Ah all women secretly love a bit of rape.

luckily the mod (and the 46 people who thanked the mod) could extrapolate that their intentions with this joke weren't good

I accept that there can be multiple reasons for why any one joke is made. However, having seen how humour is used to disempower others, alter others' attitudes and trivialise suffering and violence, I am very wary and highly critical of such 'jokes' and believe that the intentions behind them aren't good

Morlar

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

wow seriously hostile tone there! So you don't generally hypothesise about peoples' intentions/motives for their actions and words?

When you say 'actions and words' you mean jokes right ?

No, I don't try to assign ulterior motives to random strangers who make throwaway jokes on the internet.

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

that would be strange indeed.

Not at all.

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I think it was clear that I was saying 'in general' not that I can account for every single rape joke ever made with 1 reason

Ah all women secretly love a bit of rape.

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

luckily the mod (and the 46 people who thanked the mod) could extrapolate that their intentions with this joke weren't good

You are presuming an ulterior motive behind a person who made a joke.

The people who thanked the mod could just as easily have done so because they found it offensive & not that they made a presumption about the character of the person who posted it.

Everyone has a right to be offended from time to time and this is perfectly natural and normal. Some people will always be offended by anything, you can't and shouldn't, in my view, try to accomodate every single group who may get offended at any given time.

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I accept that there can be multiple reasons for why any one joke is made.

Obviously.

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

However, having seen how humour is used to disempower others, alter others' attitudes and trivialise suffering and violence, I am very wary and highly critical of such 'jokes' and believe that the intentions behind them aren't good

This is where we disagree. I don't subscribe to having such a joyless uber PC approach to the subject of humour.

LeeHoffmann

When you say 'actions and words' you mean jokes right ?

jokes are expressed in words, posting the joke in a forum is an action :rolleyes:

The people who thanked the mod could just as easily have done so because they found it offensive & not that they made a presumption about the character of the person who posted it.

Why do you think the mod banned the person from posting?

Not at all.

everybody hypothesises about peroples' intentions in daily life - they couldn't survive otherwise. too silly

I don't subscribe to having such a joyless uber PC approach to the subject of humour

Neither do I. I also don't subscribe to people making rape jokes in a thread about rape.

This is where we disagree

Do you disagree that humour is used

to disempower others, alter others' attitudes and trivialise suffering and violence

?

Morlar

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

jokes are expressed in words, posting the joke in a forum is an action :rolleyes

Why do you think the mod banned the person from posting?


everybody hypothesises about peroples' intentions in daily life - they couldn't survive otherwise. too silly

Neither do I. I also don't subscribe to people making rape jokes in a thread about rape.

Do you disagree that humour is used ?

It's just when you start referring to 'peoples actions and words' when in fact you mean 'person who made a joke' it becomes slightly obtuse & unclear. Far clearer to simply say 'when people post a joke' when that is what you mean.

I have already told you, I don't need to presume a motive on why person X made joke about subject Z. Could be any reason or none at all. Re why the mod would ban a user - you should ask the mod. One possibility is because the mod/other users found it offensive or inappropriate but fall short of trying to psycho-analyse this persons character on the basis of an offhand joke.

People do hypothesise about peoples intentions in daily life , however when it comes to offhand jokes posted by internet randomers in a casual, informal forum then I don't presume to know what is in that person's soul. Nor would I attempt to censor any humour I disagree with on the spurious assertion that I can read that person's soul and it is full of hate.

Personally I probably wouldn't make jokes on that subject either, least of all in this forum (though I have previously and will continue to make off colour jokes on other subjects in other forums). However we differ in that while neither you or I make jokes on thios subject in this forum I don't presume to know the reasons behind why person X would make a joke about subject Z.

On the allegation you make 'that humour is used to disempower others and trivialise their suffering' - what exactly are you talking about ? I would not be convinced by your case that this is what is happening in this thread/context though obviously anything is conceivable.

LeeHoffmann

I didn't want to be unclear or obtuse - if anything, I sometimes go too far in the opposite direction.

the spurious assertion that I can read that person's soul and it is full of hate.

hyperbole? I didn't claim either of these things.

we differ in that while neither you or I make jokes on thios subject in this forum I don't presume to know the reasons behind why person X would make a joke about subject Z.

I think we differ in that I try to figure out what these reasons are and you don't care to.

On the allegation you make 'that humour is used to disempower others and trivialise their suffering' - what exactly are you talking about ? I would not be convinced by your case that this is what is happening in this thread/context though obviously anything is conceivable.

I meant that humour is used in that way generally. That does not mean this type of humour is restricted to internet forums or real life etc. It doesn't mean it is the only type of humour being used on this particular thread. It doesn't mean this is the only type of humour that exists. It means that this is one way that humour is used and that I have often seen it used to this effect.

DaveDaRave

rapers gonna rape

Morlar

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

hyperbole? I didn't claim either of these things.

You do in effect. You are claiming it's possible to know what a persons inner motives are in posting a joke. You seem to discount that there can be utterly random, inconsenquential reasons or none at all.

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I think we differ in that I try to figure out what these reasons are and you don't care to.

I don't agree it's as straightforward as you seem to believe. I think it's a weak proposition to try to assign ulterior motives to random strangers who crack jokes on a casual internet forum.

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I meant that humour is used in that way generally. That does not mean this type of humour is restricted to internet forums or real life etc. It doesn't mean it is the only type of humour being used on this particular thread. It doesn't mean this is the only type of humour that exists. It means that this is one way that humour is used and that I have often seen it used to this effect.

Without you providing specific examples then I would say there is a flimsy connection between that assertion of yours and this thread/context.

LeeHoffmann

I can read that person's soul and it is full of hate...You do in effect

I don't in effect. I nowhere claimed anything as vague or obtuse as 'I can read your soul'. I also didn't say anybody was 'full of hate'

I think it's a weak proposition to try to assign ulterior motives to random strangers who crack jokes on a casual internet forum.

Honestly, I think it's weak to pretend you don't try to figure out what peoples' intentions are when they speak and act.

Without you providing specific examples then I would say there is a flimsy connection between that assertion of yours and this thread/context.

I don't want to have to spell out the meaning of every sentence I typed on here. Most of it is very clear. I have said that I've seen humour used to denigrate and humiliate others, particularly those who are already disempowered. This is a well-known phenomenon. I posted some links to prove that others know of it etc. I said that making rape jokes can alter peoples' attitudes to rape negatively. How can you say there's a flimsy connection between A) asserting that humour can be used to denigrate victims and make light of rape and this thread on mass rape in the Congo, which has featured a number of rape jokes?

Morlar

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Honestly, I think it's weak to pretend you don't try to figure out what peoples' intentions are when they speak and act.

What is weak is to pretend to know what are the motives of person X in posting a joke about subject Z in an casual web forum.

Also, that things like utterly random, inconsenquential or non-reasons do not apply here.

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I have said that I've seen humour used to denigrate and humiliate others, particularly those who are already disempowered. This is a well-known phenomenon. I posted some links to prove that others know of it etc. I said that making rape jokes can alter peoples' attitudes to rape negatively. How can you say there's a flimsy connection between A) asserting that humour can be used to denigrate victims and make light of rape and this thread on mass rape in the Congo, which has featured a number of rape jokes?

What I said was flimsy was the connection between your contention that humour as a 'tool to disempower' and . . . this thread.

In other words I do not take your view that jokes posted in this thread or on After Hours in general are related to an attempt to 'denigrate, humiliate the disempowered.'

The points you put forward were in relation to jews and gas chambers 70 odd years ago I would say have a beyond flimsy connection to this thread.

People are more complicated than you seem to give them credit for. It is perfectly possible to view rape, murder etc as serious issues, while also making jokes about it from time to time. The making of such jokes it not an indicator of the persons character or morals. Politically correct censorship on the basis of an assumption of a person's character and assigning ulterior motives to jokes is a regressive step in my view, it is far preferable that people be offended from time to time than people be censored in their expression on this spurious basis.

LeeHoffmann

offended

this isn't about offence. It's about suffering, stigma, and intentionality.

The making of such jokes it not an indicator of the persons character or morals.

This is where we disagree and will continue to disagree. Not only does it indicate the above, it also influences, alters and shapes them.

nacho libre

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

First, using humour to reinforce one's own prejudices is an entirely separate motive/purpose to using humour as a defence mechanism. Secondly, you talk about this as though they were standing around with a bunch of people who brought up a difficult, uncomfortable and upsetting topic and then they reacted to it badly to cope with the stress of the conversation. That's not the case here. These people saw a thread entitled '50 women raped in the Congo per hour' and chose to click into that thread, maybe have a read and post one or more rape jokes. If they found the topic too disturbing, they should have (and likely would have) a) not clicked into the thread, or b) left the thread without posting rape jokes that would intefere with the conversation and probably upset a lot of people.
So again, I don't think people posted rape jokes because of a coping mechanism

I didn't say those people were posting jokes as a coping mechanism.
I said some people make jokes about taboo subjects as a coping mechanism. I believe humour is actually employed as a defense mechanism by humans for a variety of different reasons, whether it be a coping mechanism, a way to relieve stress, to mask or avoid dealing with an inherent prejudice people may have, to have a sense of control over traumatic events. etc

for example, a guy might make a derogatory comment about a woman, then pass it off as a light- hearted comment, in an attempt to conceal his misogyny. wouldn't you class that as a defense mechanism?

personally i love if someone can make me laugh at a funeral, to others this maybe seen as disrespectful, but it's my way of dealing with a stressful occasion.

so i'd class that as a coping mechamism

i recall a video on youtube, where two trainee pathologists were reprimanded for what was deemed inappropriate behaviour at a mortuary. in their defense they said they had the utmost respect for the dead, larking about was just a way of dealing with stress.
i tend to believe them.

so making risque jokes isn't necessarily tantamount to being incapable of empathy and having consideration for the suffering of others.

it maybe in some cases people who make jokes, that you deem as evidence that they are lacking empathy, are indeed psychopaths- although i think such people are thankfully few and far between.