Joking about religion and dogma

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

David Mills — Fri, 12 Oct 2018 01:58:19 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]That's quite nasty which is most unlike you.[/quote]

Yeah.

1. I hope it was an almost post modern way of making a point.

2. If not, he was being a t**t. No i.

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Virginia Campbell — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:18:52 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

silly (and ugly) cow

[/quote]

That's quite nasty which is most unlike you.

She is your neighbour after all.

I always thought she was quite sensible and humane; she was a mental health nurse for a fair while which I expect takes a bit of doing. My dad hated her; but then, despite being generally a kind and nice man, he hated various other fat, non pretty women with sticky up hair on his television. Especially if they were talking. It seemed to personally offend him.

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Robin Grimmer — Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:27:48 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]And yet you call Jo Brand a 'cow' and a tennis player a 'Golliwog'. On which planet could those comments not be deliberately offensive?[/quote]

yes. I called her a silly (ugly) cow. It was deliberately offensive. It was deserved. I felt no need to be courteous. I did not call a tennis player "a Golliwog" and you know it. I agreed that his hairdo made him look like a golliwog. Why would that offend him (unless he was particularly vain about his hairdo) or anyone else?

[/quote]

It's offensive because it's a racist term - OK you didn't say it but you are agreeing with it. A more appropriate word would be Afro.

It's rather odd that you should bring up this incident which happened back in 2009. The person using the term golliwog was none other than Carol Thatcher, daughter of the late PM. It happened in the Green Room of the One Show - OK it wasn't on air, but Thatcher used the term repeatedly and also referred to the tennis player Jo-Wilfried Tsonga as a 'golliwog frog'. Also, you single Jo Brand out, but Adrian Chiles was equally vocal in his criticism of Carol Thatcher.

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 17:01:45 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Firstly, people who put themselves forward to the public as professional entertainers must accept being criticised, and not always fairly. [/quote]

Rubbish.

Criticise their talent (lack of) or behaviour....but to call someone out on their looks is infantile. It should have stayed in primary school.

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Bob Russell — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 16:50:45 GMT

Fun to see how offended people 'want to be'!

If you look at the comments under the Spike Milligan clip on Youtube you may get a better idea of what the humour was about.

It was in the 70's, there had been a large number of Ugandan Asians expelled by the lunatic Idi Amin (His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular).

There was a large influx arriving in the UK as a safe haven. They were British Subjects (later Citizens) therefore could live here freely.

They were seen by many as alien to 'British culture'. Spike Milligan wrote this sketch to show the absurdity of this attitude. He converted them to true aliens, hopefully diffusing the idea they were a threat by using humour.

Still offended?

Of course you could argue that most of these people were not Pakistani. You could also argue that actually most 'Indian' takeaways were/are run by Bangladeshis.

This was a very clever sketch, absolutely devoid of racism but making fun of those that were racist. Perhaps a little of its time and aged but not offensive.

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 16:34:50 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]Johnny Vegas is fat, ugly and I don't find him in the slightest bit funny.[/quote]Now that's something I can agree with.

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

David Mills — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 16:23:33 GMT

[quote user="Chris Geddes"]I'm just wondering what she has done to Evelyn to deserve being called names![/quote]

She turned him down. Repeatedly.

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 16:22:38 GMT

[quote user="Chris Geddes"]So she wasn't blessed with the good looks you have Evelyn. Why does that mean she deserves to have that pointed out? What did she do to you?![/quote]

Read things in context, people. Read things in context.

Firstly, people who put themselves forward to the public as professional entertainers must accept being criticised, and not always fairly. Secondly, I use derogatory terms about the woman because she kicked up such a ridiculous row, screaming claptrap about "challenging racism" , because someone remarked in a private conversation that this tennis player's hairdo made him look like a golliwog (which it did).

Caucasian footballers are noted for their poor taste in hair styling. Cracks about mullets and all the rest of it are staples for every columnist. Nobody protests about that.

PS Who is Johnny Vegas?

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Chris Geddes — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:46:52 GMT

[quote user="Rob Davis"]

I'm not sure that Evelyn has made any comment on her looks.... "ugly" does not necessarily refer to appearance.

[/quote]

Ok...that is how the word is generally used.

From OED: Unpleasant or repulsive, especially in appearance.

I wonder in what way she is unpleasant or repulsive, and why she deserves to be described thus?

I think she's an unfunny comedian, but I'm not aware of her being a nasty person. I'm just wondering what she has done to Evelyn to deserve being called names!

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Rob Davis — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:33:48 GMT

[quote user="Chris Geddes"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

yes. I called her a silly (ugly) cow. It was deliberately offensive. It was deserved.

[/quote]

So she wasn't blessed with the good looks you have Evelyn. Why does that mean she deserves to have that pointed out? What did she do to you?!

[/quote]

I'm not sure that Evelyn has made any comment on her looks.... "ugly" does not necessarily refer to appearance.

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Robin Grimmer — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:29:49 GMT

^ Because she is female? After all, Johnny Vegas is fat, ugly and I don't find him in the slightest bit funny.

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Chris Geddes — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:13:34 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

yes. I called her a silly (ugly) cow. It was deliberately offensive. It was deserved.

[/quote]

So she wasn't blessed with the good looks you have Evelyn. Why does that mean she deserves to have that pointed out? What did she do to you?!

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 14:36:06 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

Here you are directly linking law enforcement to speech. Hence you are not defending free speech that liberally. In my view, this is a restriction on free speech, you expect this Wah-habi priest to speak politically correctly or face consequences.

[/quote]

Hmm, no. See Arlo's dictionary definition of politicl correctness below. i'd defend his right to be extremely offensive. I won't admit him a right to incite violence against me, my family, my country, my compatriots. Yes, that's a certain restriction.

Why i asked you to define "hate speech" in the context of your question was because, as you know I think, the politically correct illiberal liberals who seem to wield so much power in these times will label as almost anything mildly critical as "hate speech" if they choose. And this labelling can lead not just to opprobium but to loss of job, loss of career, consequent loss to the community of a valuable contributor.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]But I take issue with the double standards of thinking what is offensive and what is not based on the person belonging to the 'offended' community or not. If the Jewish community are themselves deciding what is being anti-Semitic and what it is not, unilaterally, then each community should be allowed to decide what is offensive to themselves, also unilaterally.[/quote]

I quite agree. But you also have to accept the converse: if somebody is not offended by something somebody says or does, it's no business of anyone else. For instance, how many Mexicans were offended by a Mexican restaurant handing out Mexican hats to English students?

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Julie Innes — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:36:32 GMT

Interesting debate. My dad talks about being in London in Speakers Corner in the 60s/ 70s, and some guy on a soap box shouting about his support for the IRA and how they were coming to bomb you all etc etc. He (my dad) was angry, but recognised the right to free speech, even if the speaker was saying something horrible.

Nowadays I think the balance has shifted a little. Nowadays that would not be tolerated as it would be deemed inciting hatred or religious bigotry. I am torn between doing my best to not cause offence to anyone and getting frustrated by the professionally offended who want to see offence in everything.

I do think Evelyns comments about Jo Brand were a bit out of turn. However I saw her perform at a student Union many years ago and the people who tried to put her down soon wished they hadn't. Funny and well grounded lady!

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:28:26 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]And yet you call Jo Brand a 'cow' and a tennis player a 'Golliwog'. On which planet could those comments not be deliberately offensive?[/quote]Indeed these comments are about things over which the recipient has no control, Joe Brand cannot help being ugly (although beauty is in the eye of the beholder) and the black tennis player cannot change his race (OK his hairstyle is a choice) but religious belief is just that - a belief over which you have choice and therefore can and should be challenged.

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]What about the people who are murdered as a result of the preachings of your priest - isn't there something to be said for restricting those preachings before it gets to that stage?[/quote]Agreed. If I stood on a soapbox as an atheist and called for all those with religious beliefs to be murdered by other atheists because they don't fit with my philosophy I doubt anyone would take any action, they'd think I was just an eccentric fool. But the priest is preaching to subjects who are are already indoctrinated in hate from religious dogma and take it almost as an order they must obey. We're not talking about freedom of speech then but freedom to incite murder - somewhat different.

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 09:10:20 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]I think free speech has its limits[/quote]

Francisco Gomez Absolutely. There is, in fact, no such thing as free speech. We are all limited in what we can say, either by law or we self-moderate/censor according to the standards with which we feel comfortable, which in turn are sometimes driven by 'political correctness'.

I would argue that Evelyn's deletion of the Dalek thing was at least in part a consequence of politically correct thinking. Yes, I know Evelyn has said that's nonsense, it is just a question of manners. Posted something which appeared to have caused offence, so apologised and removed it.

But hang on. Definition of politically correct:

Someone who is politically correct believes that language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to sex and race, should be avoided.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politically-correct

Avoided or apologised for, same thing.

I'd argue here that the video is fluffier than an angora rabbit after a trip to the salon. Harmless. And the question is whether, even if it did cause offence, it would be right to remove it and apologise. Or whether the person who (supposedly, in this case, because it came from the anon account) took offence should not have. I lean towards the latter.

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Francisco Gomez — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 08:35:15 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Ah, weasel words. It depends what you mean by "hate speech". Give some examples and i can answer you.

[/quote]

You provided your own example:

[quote]

if you are an immigrant Wah-habi Islam priest calling for British people to be murdered you should expect to be deported to wherever you came from

[/quote]

I don't disagree with it. I think free speech has its limits and these should be recognised, especially when the 'speech' comes from a person of authority, like a priest or a teacher.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

Do you belong to a minority where those 'politically correct' restrictions that you detest are in use? If you don't, is your opinion about this restrictions less valid?

[/quote]

No, it isn't.

[/quote]

I think there are degrees of political correctness. When people are not being politically correct but don't fall in the 'hate speech' spectrum they probably are just being offensive and rude. But I take issue with the double standards of thinking what is offensive and what is not based on the person belonging to the 'offended' community or not. If the Jewish community are themselves deciding what is being anti-Semitic and what it is not, unilaterally, then each community should be allowed to decide what is offensive to themselves, also unilaterally.

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 02:03:19 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]And yet you call Jo Brand a 'cow' and a tennis player a 'Golliwog'. On which planet could those comments not be deliberately offensive?[/quote]

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]So why are we having this discussion? Apparently we all agree that commenting on, or joking about, a religion is ok...it is, afterall, called free speech. And unless you are inciting hatred or violence (I doubt comparing God with Mr Tickle would do that) the law would agree.[/quote]

I never objected to that post. Somebody else (who may not, it seems, after all, have been Pakistani) said they found the Spike Milligan sketch offensive and I chose to apologise and delete it because I did not wish to hurt the feelings of a Pakistani person I did not know. In my apologising post I was moved to mention that I found the Mr Tickle crack offensive: NOT because it was an attack on religious belief, not because it was so feeble, but because the whole point of the joke rested on a false premise, either a lie or a gross misunderstanding (I hope the latter). It was the ignorance I found offensive. I have told you this several times. As I said before, if you want to make wisecracks about beliefs, make sure you understand what your wisecrack rests on.

Moreover, I said I found it offensive. I didn't "take offence". I didn't ask for it to be taken down. I would defend to the death the right of free speech.

I didn't open a discussion on the matter. I didn't start this tangent.

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Ah, weasel words. It depends what you mean by "hate speech". Give some examples and i can answer you.[/quote]

There's nothing 'weasel' about the phrase 'hate speech' By way of example, how about every speech Adolf Hitler ever gave?

[/quote]

Sigh. It's not like you to not read posts properly, Niall. I asked Francisco what he actually meant by "hate speech" in this context so that we could discuss things properly with neither of us being trapped by commenting based upon the assumption of one meaning while the other participant distorts the first's comment by applying it to another meaning. I'm sure Francisco understands that, and as soon as he tells me what he means by "hate speech" in this context, preferably with an example or two, we can discuss his interesting points.

Yes. In time of war there have to be some restrictions that would not be acceptable in time of peace. How would you go about it?

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

bevs2251 — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 01:31:27 GMT

Another atheist joke (and I am one) courtesy of my brother-in-law :

So it is the end of days and the rapture has occurred. God has everyone lined up to direct them to their places in heaven.

God starts speaking :

"God be with you all. Christians, please stand to the right of me, Muslims next to them, Buddhists next to them; Jews to the left of me, Hindus next to them, all other religions next to them. Atheists, you can stand behind me. By they way, you were wrong !"

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:45:15 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]But I defend free speech.[/quote]

Really?

So why are we having this discussion? Apparently we all agree that commenting on, or joking about, a religion is ok...it is, afterall, called free speech. And unless you are inciting hatred or violence (I doubt comparing God with Mr Tickle would do that) the law would agree.

Ironically, you earlier said...

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]I value free speech above all, by the way, and I believe (ooh, belief! ) that nobody has a right (the old cliché is "God-given right", but that would confuse things a bit, eh?) to not be offended. It is plain courtesy that prevents the intelligent and civilised from offending other individuals if we can help it. [/quote]

And yet you call Jo Brand a 'cow' and a tennis player a 'Golliwog'. On which planet could those comments not be deliberately offensive?

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Niall Taylor — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:26:58 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Ah, weasel words. It depends what you mean by "hate speech". Give some examples and i can answer you.[/quote]

There's nothing 'weasel' about the phrase 'hate speech' By way of example, how about every speech Adolf Hitler ever gave?

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]if you are an immigrant Wah-habi Islam priest calling for British people to be murdered you should expect to be deported to wherever you came from[/quote]

What about the people who are murdered as a result of the preachings of your priest - isn't there something to be said for restricting those preachings before it gets to that stage?

Niall

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

easy307 — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:46:09 GMT

www.youtube.com/watch

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:13:45 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]My bet is that it was one of our caucasian members winding you up, hence the anonymity.[/quote]

That did occur to me afterwards. Someone lying, in other words. Well, in that case, by demonstrating courtesy, I caught them with an unexpected reaction.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]But don't you think your zealous self-censorship for the benefit of someone whose identity you don't know is an extension of the things you detest. Surely?[/quote]

No. I thought I had offended someone i didn't mean to offend. I was well brought up.I had the choice of apologising and I did so.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

No, that's not what I mean at all, I mean that we should ALL take less offence. So if you say something offensive, the person on the receiving end should take less offence, and if they reply offensively, then you should also take less offence.

Which is a very long-winded way of saying we should all take less offence, regardless of who said what first.

Capeesh?

[/quote]

Si, capito. Certo. But there's a difference between feeling offence and taking offence. I don't want anyone to feel offence unless I meant them to; although sometimes it might be necessary – collateral damage, as it were. But if I mean to offend someone then I can't and won't complain if they take offence and get offensive back. See worra mean, squire?

[quote user="Jill Butterworth"]I'm not condoning or confusing hate speech with free speech, but the above makes an interesting point. [/quote]

I disagree. For the simple reason that it's not true.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

This got me thinking.

Do you belong to a minority where those 'politically correct' restrictions that you detest are in use?

[/quote]

I don't understand. Please explain what you mean. These restrictions are felt everywhere by everybody, in the Western world at least. Can't say this, mustn't say that, risking lengthy police investigation, loss of job, loss of career, even prosecution.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

Do you belong to a minority where those 'politically correct' restrictions that you detest are in use? If you don't, is your opinion about this restrictions less valid?

[/quote]

No, it isn't.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Are you comfortable with 'hate speech' being used in places of worship? [/quote]

Ah, weasel words. It depends what you mean by "hate speech". Give some examples and i can answer you.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"] I did think it odd that you'd be happy for religious leaders to call for violence. [/quote]

I'm not. Not remotely. But I defend free speech. But as I said, you must be prepared to take the consequences: if you are a British Muslim calling for the establishment of Sharia law, you must expect to be argued with robustly, but if you are an immigrant Wah-habi Islam priest calling for British people to be murdered you should expect to be deported to wherever you came from, even if you are likely to be tortured or killed when you get there.

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 17:08:23 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Well, I was brought up to believe that if someone was offended by something I said or did, even though no offence was intended, then I had been offensive. It was up to me whether to apologise or not. Which is why I apologised and deleted the Spike Milligan Dalek sketch, which I thought innocently brilliantly silly.[/quote]

But you apologised and deleted the Spike Milligan sketch in response to an anonymous post claiming to be a Pakistani offended by the sketch.

That strikes me as strange. Let's just say that if it was an offended Pakistani, then, well, I'm a Chinaman.

My bet is that it was one of our caucasian members winding you up, hence the anonymity. Not least because the video was, as you say, innocently brilliantly silly.

So innocently brilliantly silly that I am going to reshare it here, because by my offend-0-meter, there is nothing offensive about it (and if it IS offensive, then there is some value in having the discussion why).

www.youtube.com/watch

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Would you thrash a homeopath with a hunting crop?[/quote]

Not really my gig, that. But each to their own.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]I detest and deplore the present restrictions on freedom in the "politically correct" do-gooding laws against "hate speech" or whatever.[/quote]

But don't you think your zealous self-censorship for the benefit of someone whose identity you don't know is an extension of the things you detest. Surely?

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Whereas [quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]At the end of it all, I don't think we should be arguing that people shouldn't cause offence, rather that people should not TAKE offence. [/quote] seems to be saying that if you set out to give offence you should be protected from offensive reply![/quote]

Which is a very long-winded way of saying we should all take less offence, regardless of who said what first.

Capeesh?

RE: Joking about religion and dogma

Jill Butterworth — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 17:06:45 GMT

I'm not condoning or confusing hate speech with free speech, but the above makes an interesting point.