The Aristocrats joke

[honeydevil]

oh moto, you are thinking person... but let the others say, that they think it is inapropriate (sp?).. and if everybody just ignores what he/she doesn't like on the forum, the debate is going to die, very quickly...

 

[Motokid]

But if everybody just makes a statement and that's it, there is no "discussion" and then this is no longer a "discussion forum"...and, well....what fun is that?

I wish I could link posts from all the threads on what books people would and would not let their children read, and how they feel about sexual material in books to conversations like these. Most argue that they would never censor their child from reading whatever it is they want to read. Yet a thread like this is pounced on with vigor as being vulger and childish. I find it hard to rationalise why censoring of books is bad, but censoring of threads is good.


But that's just me.

 

[Peder]

I find it hard to rationalise why censoring of books is bad, but censoring of threads is good.


But that's just me.

No Moto,
It's not quite just you. I agree with your observation that nothing bad has happened here .... yet. And when it does there will presumably be an appropriate reaction.
Just as a relevant fine point, freedom of speech and press are freedom from prior restraint as i understand them. After the fact, certain actions can be punishable as against the law. (e.g. libel, obscenity, incitement to violence, others, I suspect).
For that freedom we swallow cases right up to the edge it seems to me.
So IMO there's little wrong with him saying he knows a dirty joke.
Telling the dirty joke would be a different matter.
Peder

 

[Libre]

Here's freedom of speech popping up again.
Freedom of speech would allow the telling of the joke, not just saying that he knows a joke.
He posted a link to the joke itself. That is equivalent to telling it, more or less.
No harm has been done, and nobody is suggesting jail time or any other punitive measures.
I'm just saying I didn't like the joke, I think it's innapropriate here, and I think it's a dumb idea, and it's OK for me to say so because after all, I have freedom of speech too.

 

[Kookamoor]

Most argue that they would never censor their child from reading whatever it is they want to read. Yet a thread like this is pounced on with vigor as being vulger and childish. I find it hard to rationalise why censoring of books is bad, but censoring of threads is good.

This isn't about censoring, Moto, but more to do with vulgarity for the sake of vulgarity, which I think most parents would disagree with. The point of this 'joke' is to outdo one another with the most shocking/vulgar aspects that you can. Stopping that is not so much about censorship, but about general respect. It's all very well to say that 'people who don't want to read it should stay away', but if someone stumbles upon this thread, says "What's the Aristocats' Joke" and then is flooded with profanity and vulgarity, well, that's very disrespectfulto them. And that's probably the reason it is expressly forbiden through Forum MA:

3.8 You agree that you will not use The Book Forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you.

I do agree with you on one thing, however, and that is that by ignoring this sort of thing we make a stand against it. I'm happy that people have come out and endorsed their displeasure at this sort of Forum content, because the poster may have thought it was acceptable and has now been corrected on that. Now that that is done I can't see anything more here to discuss.

 

[Peder]

Freedom of speech would allow the telling of the joke, not just saying that he knows a joke.

Libre, Cool it a bit.
Did anyone say anything different?
Or are we in violent agreement?
Peder

 

[Doug Johnson]

I could be wrong, but I thought the whole point of the joke was that it isn't funny, so it becomes a challenge for comedians to make it funny.

A similar sort of idea would be involve giving writers a boring story, "I woke up this morning. I went to work," and asking them to retell it in an interesting fashion.

I haven't seen the movie, but I believe that not every single comedian relies upon profanity or filth. Although, I have seen the South Park version: definitely not for kids.

 

[Libre]

No Moto,
So IMO there's little wrong with him saying he knows a dirty joke.
Telling the dirty joke would be a different matter.
Peder

That sounds different to me.
I could be wrong.
What do you mean, "cool it"?

 

[muggle]

That sounds different to me.
I could be wrong.
What do you mean, "cool it"?

No Libre, you are not wrong.

 

[Motokid]

has anyone heard the joke, "The Aristocrats"? its a joke where you make your own version as disgusting and perverted as possible, the purpose of this thread is so that people can tell their versions.

This is the complete...entire..uneditted original post...there is no link, no mention of the actual joke...nothing.....it's only the possible after posts that could become an issue.....and so far there's nothing mentioned that resembles a joke.....but I am laughing

 

[Peder]

.
Just as a relevant fine point, freedom of speech and press are freedom from prior restraint as i understand them. After the fact, certain actions can be punishable as against the law. (e.g. libel, obscenity, incitement to violence, others, I suspect).
Peder

Libre,
'Freedom from prior restraint' means to me exactly that the person has the right to tell the joke. Exactly as you also agree.

'Telling it being a diffferent matter' means to me that, after the guaranteed right of telling, then penalties may come into play depending on what was said. Even with free speech one is not free of potential penalties.

'Cool it was' my reaction to your vigorous assertion that you have rights too! I don't recall anyone saying or even implying that you didn't. In fact, I don't see how someone's else's right to free speech is any infringemnt of any of your rights, that it needs such a response on your part.

Clearer?
Peder

 

[Libre]

"Cool it" is synonymous with "stifle it" or just plain old, "keep quiet". Now, where is my freedom of speech, Peder? You are a crusader of that freedom, are you not? Doesn't freedom of speech empower the speaker to be as "vigorous" as he/she feels is necessary to make his/her point, without being asked, rather, curtly commanded, to "cool it"?
Besides which, I don't think my assertion was "vigorous". It was a reaction to both Motokid's assertion that we should say nothing about the dirty joke, and your - somewhat confused and contradictory assertion - that amcartoon's freedom of speech is in effect only up until the time he actually speaks, at which point he could be penalized for his speech.
Telling me to "cool it" is a sure-fire way to get me riled up - much like I become suspicious when someone says, "trust me".

Motokid - you are absolutely right. amcartoon posted no link at all, it was a following post.

 

[Peder]

So be riled up.
I'm content to let our posts stand the way they are for anyone to look at and draw their own conclusions.
Peder

 

[Libre]

So be riled up.
Peder

Nah - life's too short and I have reading to do.
Motokid has a valid point when he says the best way to deal with annoying posts is to ignore them.

 

[abecedarian]

Nah - life's too short and I have reading to do.
Motokid has a valid point when he says the best way to deal with annoying posts is to ignore them.

Annoying posts?? What annoying posts?

 

[Libre]

As Peder said, let's let the posts stand the way they are for people to draw their own conclusions.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

I'm glad we didn't tell them about the dirty knife

 

[amcartoon]

i didn't actually want people to reply with their versions of the joke, I just wanted to see what reactions i'd get for bringing it up.