Too soon?

aaronjumper

I have noticed that after some sort of tragedy has befallen some people/country/movement that if you wait long enough it becomes kind of acceptable to poke fun at it.

I am not saying everybody does it or that we should, just that it does happen.
After hours seems to be guilty of it every now and then. You have probably seen it or taken part in it.

What I want ta ask is if anyone knows why this is or how long it takes for something to become fair game? How do you decide? Does the the level of horror extend the time before it becomes acceptable? If it happens somewhere far way does it become acceptable faster?Is this morbid practice the result of twisted humour or is it something else?

Conall Cernach

If you think to yourself "Bill Hicks would make this joke" then you are not too soon. If you think "Frankie Boyle would make this joke" then you probably are too soon.

jester77

aaronjumper wrote: »

I have noticed that after some sort of tragedy has befallen some people/country/movement that if you wait long enough it becomes kind of acceptable to poke fun at it.

I am not saying everybody does it or that we should, just that it does happen.
After hours seems to be guilty of it every now and then. You have probably seen it or taken part in it.

What I want ta ask is if anyone knows why this is or how long it takes for something to become fair game? How do you decide? Does the the level of horror extend the time before it becomes acceptable? If it happens somewhere far way does it become acceptable faster?Is this morbid practice the result of twisted humour or is it something else?

((TIME x EVENT MAGNITUDE x DISTANCE) / CRASSNESS OF HUMOUR) x Pi

GastroBoy

22.3 years.

CruelCoin

I'd be watching a pyroclastic flow destroy a village and be texting the joke at the same time.

Humour has no launch date.

aaronjumper

Conall Cernach wrote: »

If you think to yourself "Bill Hicks would make this joke" then you are not too soon. If you think "Frankie Boyle would make this joke" then you probably are too soon.

I think you may have just stumbled on a way to measure it :eek:

Capt'n Midnight

There are other places where stuff can be posted sooner.

Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.
Mel Brooks

keith16

CruelCoin wrote: »

I'd be watching a pyroclastic flow destroy a village and be texting the joke at the same time.

Humour has no launch date.

At a guess...would that joke be...

Why was the village confused?

Because it was vaporised in an instant by a pyroclastic flow.

I don't get it.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Gilbert Gottfried made a joke about 9/11 three weeks after it had happened. It was during a comedy roast of Hugh Hefner in NYC. Needless to say it didn't go down well. Amazingly he swiftly switched gears to the famous anti joke "The Aristocrats" and walked off stage to a standing ovation.

Youssef Chippo

I find joke about Princess Diana disgusting, a young woman killed leaving two young kids behind.

Capt'n Midnight

Roz: Ever heard of Lupe Velez?

Frasier: Who?

Roz: Lupe Velez, the movie star in the '30s. Well, her career hit the skids, so she decided she'd make one final stab at immortality. She figured if she couldn't be remembered for her movies, she'd be remembered for the way she died. And all Lupe wanted was to be remembered. So, she plans this lavish suicide - flowers, candles, silk sheets, white satin gown, full hair and makeup, the works. She takes the overdose of pills, lays on the bed, and imagines how beautiful she's going to look on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper. Unfortunately, the pills don't sit well with the enchilada combo plate she sadly chose as her last meal. She stumbles to the bathroom, trips and goes head-first into the toilet, and that's how they found her.

Frasier: Is there a reason you're telling me this story?

Roz: Yes. Even though things may not happen like we planned, they can work out anyway.

Frasier: Remind me again how it worked for Lupe, last seen with her head in the toilet.

Roz: All she wanted was to be remembered. Will you ever forget that story?

Father Damo

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

. Amazingly he swiftly switched gears to the famous anti joke "The Aristocrats" and walked off stage to a standing ovation.

That joke is atrocious. Not because of its subject matter, but because it is simply utter rubbish. The documentary on it is one of the worst things I have ever sat through. 50 odd comedians telling the same story, of which about two of them were mildly amusing.

Example; one doing the rounds now is

What do you call a paedo on a horse?
Jimmy Saddle :pac:

Now, its a pretty crap joke....so bad you will laugh in fact. But it is topical, it is joke etc etc. Much like all of those dead baby jokes the aristocrat one has absoloutely no point or relevance to it whatsoever.

Carbon Bootprint

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Gilbert Gottfried made a joke about 9/11 three weeks after it had happened. It was during a comedy roast of Hugh Hefner in NYC. Needless to say it didn't go down well. Amazingly he swiftly switched gears to the famous anti joke "The Aristocrats" and walked off stage to a standing ovation.

And then he later made a joke soon after the Japanese tsunami and lost his job as a "spokesman" of sorts for an insurance company.

Cookie_Monster

If you don't know them personally then it's never too soon.

im invisible

What kind of sick **** kidnaps a kid like April Jones?

She's not even that good looking...

Wee Willy Harris

The only reason I ever do this is in most uncharacteristically keeping with a perceived *ahem* climate??

kowloon

Youssef Chippo wrote: »

I find joke about Princess Diana disgusting, a young woman killed leaving two young kids behind.

If it was just some woman called Diana who nobody gave a shit about would it be okay?

Not having a go at you, but it seems to me that in the eyes of many certain people are exempt from normal proceedings.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Father Damo wrote: »

That joke is atrocious. Not because of its subject matter, but because it is simply utter rubbish. The documentary on it is one of the worst things I have ever sat through. 50 odd comedians telling the same story, of which about two of them were mildly amusing.

Example; one doing the rounds now is

What do you call a paedo on a horse?
Jimmy Saddle :pac:

Now, its a pretty crap joke....so bad you will laugh in fact. But it is topical, it is joke etc etc. Much like all of those dead baby jokes the aristocrat one has absoloutely no point or relevance to it whatsoever.

I'd agree, its not my kind of humour at all. Its kind of an insider thing among comedians as to who can tell the best version. The punchline falling flat is what supposedly makes it so brilliant, originally it was seen as a social commentary on the decline of the aristocracy

An 'Anti Joke' though is notoriously difficult to get over with a live audience. I think that's why it remains popular, people appreciate the creative efforts of each individual comedian in trying to make their version different.

Father Damo

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I'd agree, its not my kind of humour at all. Its kind of an insider thing among comedians as to who can tell the best version. The punchline falling flat is what supposedly makes it so brilliant, originally it was seen as a social commentary on the decline of the aristocracy

.

Indeed. Maybe the aristocracy were known for some pretty bizarre sex way back then and it was topical and amusing.

This is the 21st century. The aristocracy are simply now known for being stone cash broke yet too proud to sell off their land, and resorting to various types of fraud.

Maybe if "The Aristocrats" punchline was changed to "The Christian Brothers" it miht be more topical. But for me that documentary was just a bunch of holier than thou comedians slapping each others back on what an acidic controversial wit they each had.