backs to the wall....

RayM

magma69 wrote: »

10 pages of discussion on a stupid joke make by a rugby player on social media. Some people are feckin obsessed.

Without 'victims' of the imaginary 'PC Brigade' queuing up to pretend they've been silenced (chance would be a fine thing), there would be no thread.

efb

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Just this week Tim Hunt, Nobel Lureate, was forced to resign from his position when he made an admittedly "jocular and ironic" comment about Men and Women scientists having a tendency to fall in love when they share a laboratory.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins

There have been countless other examples in media positions where presenters and broadcasters have been forced to resign after making an ill-advised joke.

His initial remarks didn't seem to indicate he was being "jocular and ironic"

Still, doesn't define plenty

Sound of Silence

RayM wrote: »

Without 'victims' of the imaginary 'PC Brigade' queuing up to pretend they've been silenced (chance would be a fine thing), there would be no thread.

For many in the media, this idea of free-speech comes with a massive caveat - "If we don't find the humour in what you said, we may contact your sponsors and try to get you fired". It happens frighteningly often.

In the era of twitter and instant feedback, it's easy for broadcasters and advertisers to get caught in the whirlwind of controversy and make some rash decisions. Despite this, no one seems to have realised that it is possible to simply change the channel, unfollow the tweeter, or stop listening to the radio if it offends their sensibilities.

But there are people out there who feel vindicated by the offence they take.

SpaceTime

The problem is pretty simple really, this might not offend you personally and it may not even be fully comprehended by you personally, but you have to think about it from how a gay person might see it.

If you've gone through your entire life being taunted and poked fun with a mixture of casual homophobia in the media, from 'mates', from random people and with the odd bit of full-on homophobia which can be pretty seriously nasty stuff, you might be quite a lot more sensitive to someone who you looked up to / respected or who is 'the establishment' in the sense of a major sports figure using that kind of language.

I don't think it's about political correctness, it's about a bit of empathy and understanding really.

Try thinking about little comments like that from the point of view of someone who may genuinely find they do hurt. They roll off the cuff as casual comments for other people, but for a % of the population they can be pretty stinging.

It's a bit like the way (or probably a bit worse) than the odd casual bit of anti-Irish language that gets used in England. For a while you laugh it off, then after a while it just becomes grating and grinding and it's just that drip, drip, drip effect of little bits of casual 'humour' that start to really become quite undermining to say the least.

It's not that someone doesn't have a sense of humour, it's the fact that they're expected to 'laugh off' a joke that is entirely about them.

cloudatlas

It's too close to home and it's too close to the bone for many gay people who have suffered homophobic abuse.

They aren't going to think 'oh ha ha yeah Cian, I remember when those big rugger guys in school used to say...'.

I'm sure it's mostly funny for straights who don't get it like some of the childish pictures I saw recently for example photos of two straight friends with the tagline 'yes equality' attached to it :rolleyes:.

Cian is not a homophobe he's just a bit of moron, not a total moron, just a bit.

efb

Sound of Silence wrote: »

For many in the media, this idea of free-speech comes with a massive caveat - "If we don't find the humour in what you said, we may contact your sponsors and try to get you fired". It happens frighteningly often.

In the era of twitter and instant feedback, it's easy for broadcasters and advertisers to get caught in the whirlwind of controversy and make some rash decisions. Despite this, no one seems to have realised that it is possible to simply change the channel, unfollow the tweeter, or stop listening to the radio if it offends their sensibilities.

But there are people out there who feel vindicated by the offence they take.

If it happens so frightfully often where are all your examples?

Should people be allowed say whatever they want in the name of humour, or who gets to decide?

I've said already that I think Cian's tweet was stupid, thats it.

ThinkProgress

efb wrote: »

who decides when a joke is harmless?

It's a joke. It's express purpose is to illicit a humorous reaction. Not to harm. Unless you consider humor harmful? (I wonder about some on this thread) :P

If it failed to make you laugh, that means it's a bad joke. But nothing more.

It actually made me laugh, when I realized he was probably directing it at some of the homophobic NO voters that made him so angry in the referendum. (the fact so few people considered this possibility, still amazes me tbh)

efb

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It's a joke. It's express purpose is to illicit a humorous reaction. Not to harm. Unless you consider humor harmful? (I wonder about some on this thread) :P

If it failed to make you laugh, that means it's a bad joke. But nothing more.

It actually made me laugh, when I realized he was probably directing it at some of the homophobic NO voters that made him so angry in the referendum. (the fact so few people considered this possibility, still amazes me tbh)

So as long I say something with the intention of it being funny it my mind then it's fair game? Am I allowed say it anywhere? Should I be restricted from telling it to certain groups?

efb

The only people who I think would find that funny are the people that snigger at the pun in your gaming group in Sound of Silence's sig

LadyFenghuang

efb wrote: »

The only people who I think would find that funny are the people that snigger at the pun in your gaming group in your sig

It's an Irish gaming community....for all.

I didn't actually think there was a pun until you said.

cloudatlas

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It's a joke. It's express purpose is to illicit a humorous reaction. Not to harm. Unless you consider humor harmful? (I wonder about some on this thread) :P

If it failed to make you laugh, that means it's a bad joke. But nothing more.

It actually made me laugh, when I realized he was probably directing it at some of the homophobic NO voters that made him so angry in the referendum. (the fact so few people considered this possibility, still amazes me tbh)

It's not a bit of craic if it was shouted at you by a group of lads in school as you walk down the corridor on your way to class. I know that wasn't the context but it still may stir up uncomfortable and bad memories for some.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't know many jokes that work in a double edged way... that phrase was always a 'joke' albeit in a disgusting sense so trying to make a new joke out of a horrible 'joke' doesn't alter it in a comedic way at all because the old 'joke' was so entrenched. Those who are laughing are probably used to how they heard it in school and are laughing at that understanding of the 'joke' and not any new meaning.

efb

LadyFenghuang wrote: »

It's an Irish gaming community....for all.

I didn't actually think there was a pun until you said.

otherwise its a strange happenstance.

K4t

Sound of Silence wrote: »

You seem to believe that a poorly constructed joke is no different than actually expressed hatred, when it is nothing more than a poorly constructed joke.

For some nowadays, a failed joke is license to jump on twitter and accuse the person who made it of being hateful and stupid, despite every indication of the person being neither. This being evidenced by the fact that, in this case, Cian Healy has quite obviously shown his support for the gay community in the past, and is in no way a bigot.

Don't see anyone in this thread comparing what he said to an expression of hatred, or even close to it - So now it's a poorly constructed joke, and a failed joke? A few hours ago it was simply a joke and a funny one at that. You're placing far too much emphasis on the term joke, rather than on what he actually said - nobody is saying he's hateful - people are simply saying what he said was stupid -There's no big conspiracy of hate campaign against Cian Healy - not from me anyway.

You see, It is not a crime to make a poor joke, and it is never reason enough for endless moralising on the behalf of offence takers.

Think about it. Have you ever made an off-colour joke that fell a bit short? I'm sure everyone here has at least once. Those who heard it and took offence may likely have made assumptions about your character which were probably completely off-base. And in most cases these people would be wrong. But it seems that in todays society, no matter what your background is, one simple transgression and every single positive thing you've done in the past is thrown out the window and you suddenly become an irreparable bigot - Context be damned.

It's just nowadays people are losing their jobs because people are taking offence. And I'm sure you can agree, it's ridiculous.

As I've said already, I find what he said incredibly stupid, and potentially harmful to the gay community - I'm not leading a witch hunt against Cian Healy despite you best efforts to believe the contrary - I could care less about the man - But I do care about what he said due to the fact that it is in the public domain and doing the rounds in social media - And I care even more when posters here attempt to create a false narrative whereby they accuse anyone who dares critique and call out what he said as stupidity, of enforcing their views on others, and acting as some sort of thought police, using terms such as sjw and pc etc.

Sound of Silence

K4t wrote: »

people are simply saying what he said was stupid
...potentially harmful to the gay community

It's simply stupid but apparently also harmful to the gay community.

How does Cian Healy's joke harm anyone?

ThinkProgress

efb wrote: »

So as long I say something with the intention of it being funny it my mind then it's fair game? Am I allowed say it anywhere? Should I be restricted from telling it to certain groups?

Depends how brave you are. And how funny. And your motive.

Basically, if people know you're being humorous and not malicious, and the joke is good - I can't think of many scenarios where you couldn't pull it off.

cloudatlas wrote: »

It's not a bit of craic if it was shouted at you by a group of lads in school as you walk down the corridor on your way to class. I know that wasn't the context but it still may stir up uncomfortable and bad memories for some.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't know many jokes that work in a double edged way... that phrase was always a 'joke' albeit in a disgusting sense so trying to make a new joke out of a horrible 'joke' doesn't alter it in a comedic way at all because the old 'joke' was so entrenched. Those who are laughing are probably used to how they heard it in school and are laughing at that understanding of the 'joke' and not any new meaning.

No you're right, it certainly wasn't the context.

I don't think many people understood the true context of this joke. Partly because it's intention was too well disguised (imo), and also partly because the joke itself was not massively funny! (although it did make me grin a bit)

But then Cian Healy is not a professional comedian, he's a rugby player. Can't really blame him for making an average joke!

efb

Sound of Silence wrote: »

It's simply stupid but apparently also harmful to the gay community.

How does Cian Healy's joke harm anyone?

a young vulnerable teen who is confused about his sexuality might see it as very hurtful and remind him of homophobic jibes he suffers.

Doesn't harm me, but I'm 35 now

efb

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Depends how brave you are. And how funny. And your motive.

Basically, if people know you're being humorous and not malicious, and the joke is good - I can't think of many scenarios where you couldn't pull it off.



No you're right, it certainly wasn't the context.

I don't think many people understood the true context of this joke. Partly because it's intention was too well disguised (imo), and also partly because the joke itself was not massively funny! (although it did make me grin a bit)

But then Cian Healy is not a professional comedian, he's a rugby player. Can't really blame him for making an average joke!

Thats a big IF though, how many people interpret things differently when they are written down, communication is largely about body language and how the receiver interprets the message.

efb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l84MdfAox0Y

LadyFenghuang

be like bart!

K4t

Sound of Silence wrote: »

For many in the media, this idea of free-speech comes with a massive caveat - "If we don't find the humour in what you said, we may contact your sponsors and try to get you fired". It happens frighteningly often.

In the era of twitter and instant feedback, it's easy for broadcasters and advertisers to get caught in the whirlwind of controversy and make some rash decisions. Despite this, no one seems to have realised that it is possible to simply change the channel, unfollow the tweeter, or stop listening to the radio if it offends their sensibilities.

But there are people out there who feel vindicated by the offence they take.

Exerting your right to free speech, and subsequently getting fired for doing so, is not an infringement on your right to free speech. There seems to be a significant misunderstanding of the idea of free speech and social media here: Cian Healy can tweet "God Hates Fag" if he likes, but he cannot expect to tweet it and have his tweet immune from any criticism or consequences: If some people don't find humour in his tweet, or think his tweet is stupid and maybe harmful, they can say so, and yes he could potentially lose his job if it reflects badly on his employers: He has not lost his right to free speech however. Of course people can ignore television, tweets etc. but they have a choice. It's not a question of ignoring stuff you don't like or disagree with: We'd still be living in the dark ages were that the case.

K4t

Sound of Silence wrote: »

How does Cian Healy's joke harm anyone?

Why does it matter to you? I've explained why several times - it perpetuates the stereotype of gay men not being able to keep it in their pants - and in fact goes further and insinuates that they are rapists - it's an argument that he been used for generations against gays and gay rights campaigns by conservatives, especially in the US - hence why the comment could be harmful, especially if it becomes popular in discourse. Mostly it's just stupid though. But again, why do you care so much? You think it's funny and he was simply making a joke - why are you so obsessed with those of us who hold a different viewpoint regarding the tweet?

ThinkProgress

efb wrote: »

Thats a big IF though, how many people interpret things differently when they are written down, communication is largely about body language and how the receiver interprets the message.

So we should what..? Avoid telling jokes out of fear that someone will interpret it wrong?

Walk on eggshells because some people are humorless? Or lacking in communication skills?

Seems like it's not the person telling the joke that's the problem here. Or the joke itself. It's just a section of the audience. (possibly not even his intended target audience)

Maybe we could give people the abridged version in advance, with a glossary of terms and phrases printed underneath? And a disclaimer that reads: "Warning: Some of the contents of this joke may be offensive, if you're generally in the habit of misinterpreting sh*t, or you just enjoy a good moan about some imagined slight on you!"

efb

ThinkProgress wrote: »

So we should what..? Avoid telling jokes out of fear that someone will interpret it wrong?

Walk on eggshells because some people are humorless? Or lacking in communication skills?

Seems like it's not the person telling the joke that's the problem here. Or the joke itself. It's just a section of the audience. (possibly not even his intended target audience)

Maybe we could give people the abridged version in advance, with a glossary of terms and phrases printed underneath? And a disclaimer that reads: "Warning: Some of the contents of this joke may be offensive, if you're generally in the habit of misinterpreting sh*t, or you just enjoy a good moan about some imagined slight on you!"

I put it to you the person delivering the message wrongly is the one that needs to address their behaviour

K4t

ThinkProgress wrote: »

So we should what..? Avoid telling jokes out of fear that someone will interpret it wrong?

Walk on eggshells because some people are humorless? Or lacking in communication skills?

Seems like it's not the person telling the joke that's the problem here. Or the joke itself. It's just a section of the audience. (possibly not even his intended target audience)

Maybe we could give people the abridged version in advance, with a glossary of terms and phrases printed underneath? And a disclaimer that reads: "Warning: Some of the contents of this joke may be offensive, if you're generally in the habit of misinterpreting sh*t, or you just enjoy a good moan about some imagined slight on you!"

Hilarious: Still the victim I see. Are you reading your posts before you post them? Surely you can see how ridiculous what you have typed above is?

LadyFenghuang

ThinkProgress wrote: »

So we should what..? Avoid telling jokes out of fear that someone will interpret it wrong?

Walk on eggshells because some people are humorless? Or lacking in communication skills?

Seems like it's not the person telling the joke that's the problem here. Or the joke itself. It's just a section of the audience. (possibly not even his intended target audience)

Maybe we could give people the abridged version in advance, with a glossary of terms and phrases printed underneath? And a disclaimer that reads: "Warning: Some of the contents of this joke may be offensive, if you're generally in the habit of misinterpreting sh*t, or you just enjoy a good moan about some imagined slight on you!"

He did it to look cool to the lads. He ended up looking foolish.

LadyFenghuang

I would have no idea of who he was if it wasn't for this thread.

Sound of Silence

efb wrote: »

a young vulnerable teen who is confused about his sexuality might see it as very hurtful and remind him of homophobic jibes he suffers.

Doesn't harm me, but I'm 35 now

It's impossible to account for every insecure and vulnerable person when you're attempting to be funny, because most humour is really about satirising or challenging stereotypes or prejudices.

Sure, Cian's joke was a bit brazen, but it was clearly meant to be absurd.

Hugely progressive comedians like George Carlin and Todd Glass could easily be considered 'harmful' when you read their material. But you see, people find comfort in comedy and in addressing these issues in a raw and interesting way.

efb wrote: »

Thats a big IF though, how many people interpret things differently when they are written down, communication is largely about body language and how the receiver interprets the message.

Yes, but I'm sure most people are aware of the limitations of the medium. If only they would grant others the benefit of the doubt before attacking.

LadyFenghuang

Is advertising is sigs allowed?

efb

Sound of Silence wrote: »

It's impossible to account for every insecure and vulnerable person when you're attempting to be funny, because most humour is really about satirising or challenging stereotypes or prejudices.

Sure, Cian's joke was a bit brazen, but it was clearly meant to be absurd.

Hugely progressive comedians like George Carlin and Todd Glass could easily be considered 'harmful' when you read their material. But you see, people find comfort in comedy and in addressing these issues in a raw and interesting way.



Yes, but I'm sure most people are aware of the limitations of the medium. If only they would grant others the benefit of the doubt before attacking.

Who is attacking?

First rule of comedy- KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE!

Sound of Silence

LadyFenghuang wrote: »

Is advertising is sigs allowed?

I'm not selling anything, you awesome guy.

Plenty of people have links in their sigs.

LadyFenghuang

Sound of Silence wrote: »

I'm not selling anything, you moron.

Plenty of people have links in their sigs.

Don't call me a moron.

K4t

Sound of Silence wrote: »

It's impossible to account for every insecure and vulnerable person when you're attempting to be funny, because most humour is really about satirising or challenging stereotypes or prejudices.

Sure, Cian's joke was a bit brazen, but it was clearly meant to be absurd.

Hugely progressive comedians like George Carlin and Todd Glass could easily be considered 'harmful' when you read their material. But you see, people find comfort in comedy and in addressing these issues in a raw and interesting way.

Yes, but I'm sure most people are aware of the limitations of the medium. If only they would grant others the benefit of the doubt before attacking.

You make some good points there in general - though I don't think you will see anyone attacking him on this thread - and there is a massive difference between critique and attacking. I still maintain what he said was stupid, and as a stand alone comment (not in an act like Carlin or Glass would be doing with opportunity to set up and elaborate etc) it really does not appear to me as being satire or absurd. Just stupid.

Paramite Pie

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Erm? Excuse me? Do you see your name mentioned in my post anywhere

And obviously I was talking about homosexuals who are offended and just the usual crowd who'd find offence in a grayscale chart, as they are beyond debating with at this stage.

Yes, excuse you indeed.:rolleyes:
You didn't need to mention my name. You clearly just stated 'homosexuals' which is a 'name' which mentions every gay person in general. Especially when the average outrager is often not of the group they're defending.

It wasn't obvious and you could've phrased it a lot better if that was your intention. And I say that as someone who's equally annoyed with every little nitpick comment, lack of context, over analysation about freud, systems and blah d blah nonsense. And I don't like to be lumped in with them.

You'd probably jump on a comment that said 'straight people this' or 'straight people that' (and you'd be right to).

Sound of Silence

K4t wrote: »

You make some good points there in general - though I don't think you will see anyone attacking him on this thread - and there is a massive difference between critique and attacking. I still maintain what he said was stupid, and as a stand alone comment (not in an act like Carlin or Glass would be doing with opportunity to set up and elaborate etc) it really does not appear to me as being satire or absurd. Just stupid.

Most of my fervour for this topic comes from listening to some of my favourite comedians discussing the issue of moral outrage and how it can seriously affect their careers. For them, it can be stifling creatively when the public seems so eager to pounce on any opportunity for controversy.

I don't know, but for me addressing difficult issues in comedy can be quite cathartic and therapeutic. I know its helped me deal with my depression and anxiety issues, allowing me to diminish and lessen my problems by having the ability to joke about them, robbing them of their power.

I think all jokes have a place - even ****ty ones. The ability to make light of things is incredibly powerful.

efb

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Most of my fervour for this topic comes from listening to some of my favourite comedians discussing the issue of moral outrage and how it can seriously affect their careers. For them, it can be stifling creatively when the public seems so eager to pounce on any opportunity for controversy.

I don't know, but for me addressing difficult issues in comedy can be quite cathartic and therapeutic. I know its helped me deal with my depression and anxiety issues, allowing me to diminish and lessen my problems by having the ability to joke about them, robbing them of their power.

I think all jokes have a place - even ****ty ones. The ability to make light of things is incredibly powerful.

You should also be able to appreciate then how words can greatly affect people with mental health issues in both regards

ThinkProgress

K4t wrote: »

Why does it matter to you? I've explained why several times - it perpetuates the stereotype of gay men not being able to keep it in their pants - and in fact goes further and insinuates that they are rapists - it's an argument that he been used for generations against gays and gay rights campaigns by conservatives, especially in the US - hence why the comment could be harmful, especially if it becomes popular in discourse. Mostly it's just stupid though. But again, why do you care so much? You think it's funny and he was simply making a joke - why are you so obsessed with those of us who hold a different viewpoint regarding the tweet?

^^You're clearly the one trying the victim card here!

Cop on, nobody thinks gay people are rapists. Very few people thought in the past, and they certainly don't now in 2015.

I don't know of anybody who connects being gay, with rape. (Except maybe prison culture - but violent men don't just rape other men)

Popular discourse? lol

What, like all the other cliches in life? Horny housewife, horny teen, milf etc...

You think some throwaway joke will spark some mass homophobic social movement? haha

In a country that just voted for ssm?

Go back to sleep dude, your arguments are pi$$ weak! It's a joke, not a call to arms! :P

Sound of Silence

efb wrote: »

You should also be able to appreciate then how words can greatly affect people with mental health issues in both regards

They are not obligated to listen to these comedians. They may find comfort in other things.

The truth is, the world can't cater to every individual, and to think otherwise is a frustrating and unhealthy view to have.We must all find what works for us and do our best.

efb

Sound of Silence wrote: »

They are not obligated to listen to these comedians. They may find comfort in other things.

The truth is, the world can't cater to every individual, and to think otherwise is a frustrating and unhealthy view to have.We must all find what works for us and do our best.

People have a responsibility for their words and actions.


Cain didn't say the comment privately amongst friends. He posted it publicly

ThinkProgress

efb wrote: »

You should also be able to appreciate then how words can greatly affect people with mental health issues in both regards

He's just described how humor greatly aided his mental health problems...

It's very obvious when people try to side step the points they don't want to discuss!

So do you disagree with his point about humor being beneficial? That some people gain strength from laughing at serious subjects?

efb

ThinkProgress wrote: »

He's just described how humor greatly aided his mental health problems...

It's very obvious when people try to side step the points they don't want to discuss!

So do you disagree with his point about humor being beneficial? That some people gain strength from laughing at serious subjects?

Where did I say it wasn't???

ThinkProgress

efb wrote: »

Where did I say it wasn't???

You neglected to discuss the points he made, preferring instead to deflect.

Do you think if more people could see the humorous side of "serious topics", maybe those topics might be less socially marginalised?

I feel that's partly what SOS is saying... Humor can help take the edge off something that creates very entrenched views!

Being too sensitive to jokes, is a sign of discord within a person's mind.

The more society can learn to mock serious things, without being lynched for it... the sooner we can normalise that topic/issue and remove it from the margins of society!

Being overly sensitive and easily offended, often just gets in the way of societal progress!

efb

ThinkProgress wrote: »

You neglected to discuss the points he made, preferring instead to deflect.

Do you think if more people could see the humorous side of "serious topics", maybe those topics might be less socially marginalised?

I feel that's partly what SOS is saying... Humor can help take the edge off something that creates very entrenched views!

Being too sensitive to jokes, is a sign of discord within a person's mind.

The more society can learn to mock serious things, without being lynched for it... the sooner we can normalise that topic/issue and remove it from the margins of society!

Being overly sensitive and easily offended, often just gets in the way of societal progress!

what should be done with the sensitive people?

ThinkProgress

efb wrote: »

what should be done with the sensitive people?

I know what's being done with them right now, our society panders to their every whim or whine!

What should be done for the frustrated people who are currently forced to live in our overtly PC culture? Do they matter?

Do you think humor has any place within serious subjects/topics?

What do you consider acceptable topics to make jokes on?

efb

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I know what's being done with them right now, our society panders to their every whim or whine!

What should be done for the frustrated people who are currently forced to live in our overtly PC culture? Do they matter?

Do you think humor has any place within serious subjects/topics?

What do you consider acceptable topics to make jokes on?

You really think we live in an overall sensitive culture when The Star is running a front page like the one this morning?

Pumpkinseeds

I don't want to sound flippant but it's such an old and cliched joke that perhaps he just didn't think it would cause offence? I've no idea who he is but it doesn't sound like he meant any harm by it, I suppose in a round about way he actually managed to raise more attention to the issue by putting his foot in it. Either way, the end result was that the issue started a debate and he looked like a twat.:D

frostyjacks

I wonder if Kennedy hadn't made such a song and dance about it whether anyone else would have.

He has a bit of form for this, I remember him on the Irish 'celebrity' Come Dine With Me (it was on in the background when I was reading Guns & Ammo) throwing a similar tantrum when someone joked about one of his albums. The guy is just an attention seeker. He does nothing to dispel the image of gay men being drama queens.

Sheep Lover

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Yes, excuse you indeed.:rolleyes:
You didn't need to mention my name. You clearly just stated 'homosexuals' which is a 'name' which mentions every gay person in general. Especially when the average outrager is often not of the group they're defending.

It wasn't obvious and you could've phrased it a lot better if that was your intention. And I say that as someone who's equally annoyed with every little nitpick comment, lack of context, over analysation about freud, systems and blah d blah nonsense. And I don't like to be lumped in with them.

You'd probably jump on a comment that said 'straight people this' or 'straight people that' (and you'd be right to).

You're making no sense...


So. .. straight people this and straight people that..

jobbridge4life

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Typical rhetoric.

Typical bullying tactics, trying to control everyone and dictate how others should act and behave.

Typical woe-is-me victim mentality.

I think people like yourself are the ones who need to "give it up"! You can't tell others what they should find humorous - that's their choice!

Do you understand the term rhetoric? Because honestly...


Where have I said anything remotely close to 'woe-is-me'.

You don't think people should tell others what they should find humorous (please don't ever read a review of a comedy program/film/book etc it might be traumatic for you) but you do feel its appropriate to tell 'people like' me (whatever that means) to shut up? While you are looking up rhetoric you might want to give hypocrite a glance.

jobbridge4life

Sound of Silence wrote: »

It's seems like humour has become like Politics! You must weigh your words very carefully, lest you do the unimaginable - Offend someone!

I'm willing to bet that the people in this thread would have little issue with laughing at any manner of depraved jokes when it has nothing to do with them; but the moment it hits a little close to home, it's unacceptable!

Remember, jokes are meant to be absurd! I could make a joke about mass murder, but it doesn't mean I'm a murderer. In the same vein, I doubt Cian is a homophobe. He's just a guy who made a joke that fell a bit flat.

HEy Sound of Silence you might want to actually read the thread... in it you can see several examples of people saying that they don't think Cian Healy is a homophobe, including me. So stop getting your panties in a bunch over something no one is saying.

jobbridge4life

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Criticise it all you like. Getting your jocks in twist about it is just idiotic though.

Now that is a joke! And quite a funny one too Sheep Lover. Well done, maybe you can give lessons to Cian.

On this thread we have a couple of posters saying it was a dickish thing for him to say and so unfunny as to be contemptible. Then we have the usual crowd of libtards crying about the end of freedom of speech and the rise of SJWs cause a few people criticised a rugby player. 'Oh when did we lose this war to the gay facists' they squeal.

Knock Knock, 'who is it' the mirror 'the mirror who' the mirror says check yourself.