Boyle has freedom of speech, just as others have freedom of speech in return to criticise how he uses it.
Two jokes he made, one is horrible (the custody one) but is just that and has no broader consequences, well not ones that would trouble the law.
The second (the strong bloke to prevent him f-ing her) is problematic and has more trouble associated with it.
Firstly it plays on a long held stereotype of disabled people that they have sexually deviant behaviours. Do some research if you doubt this. Secondly, and if you substituted that he was disabled with that he was/is black, it could be construed as incitement to hatred. It is no less discriminatory because it is based on his disability rather than race; there appears to be widespread social non-acceptance of jokes of that ilk based on race, which is why Manning and Brown were/are not on tele anymore, I see no reason why jokes based on disability on somehow acceptable and tolerated.
It is completely true that individual races and religions are able to argue back and retaliate now, whereas people with a disability are largely not able. This fact alone should make jokes about disability unacceptable; it's not 'edgy' or 'brave' its actually cowardly to pick on someone who cant argue back or mock you in return. It's not 'breaking taboos' - it's being a ****.
Of course its just wrong to never include disability in humour, Gervais, love him or hate him, does it all the time, but the difference is that rarely are people with disability the brunt of the joke; the vast majority of the time its everyone else's attitudes or expectations that are.
As for comedians jokes making people go out and do 'bad things' well no, there's no evidence for that, however two things are true:
- there are enough crimes and hatred towards disabled people committed in this country right now, which display an underlying ignorance and discirminaton, and
- people' attitudes while possibly not created by one comedians act, are quite possible encouraged and validated by the opinion of others. Try having cerebral palsy in the 70s/80s when everyone would go up to you with a mocking 'disabled person impersonation' and go "joey" in your face, and then say cruelty cant be encouraged by whats on tv.
Frankie Boyle's humour has a lot more in common with Family Guy's than Manning's. Methinks you need to refresh yourself on all three and stop spouting such blatantly false nonsense.
Agree, I see far more commonalities between FB and FG than with Manning.
It's actually funny that people that do not Know how to defend themselves always resort to insults. I was actually giving you the opportunity to explain how can you make an assessment of me in a couple of posts. I have lots of heated discussions in this forums and not once in my life felt the need to turn the discussion personal, but on the other hand a lot people seem totally unable to keep a discussion at a certain level. Pity.
It's actually funny that people that do not Know how to defend themselves always resort to insults. I was actually giving you the opportunity to explain how can you make an assessment of me in a couple of posts. I have lots of heated discussions in this forums and not once in my life felt the need to tuen the discussion personal, but on the other hand a lot people seem totally unable to keep a discussion at a certain level. Pity.
Please please please tell me where I have resorted to insults.
Please please please tell me where I have resorted to insults.
Oh please. Do I have to?
Are you going to be precious and say, no, no, i actually didn't wrote it? Are you that type? I didn't thought you were, you're posts seem quite direct.
You tired me already.:yawn:
Oh please. Do I have to?
Are you going to be precious and say, no, no, i actually didn't wrote it? Are you that type? I didn't thought you were, you're posts seem quite direct.
You tired me already.:yawn:
Yes you do. :rolleyes:
I am already thinking that you know you are going to fall flat on your face with that comment.
Then 'freedom of speech' exists nowhere on this planet and the phrase itself is void of meaning...
You know exactly what people are trying to say in this thread.
Yes. That freedom of speech is not intended to protect persecution for political and religious belief, but to protect your right to go on TV and talk about a disabled kid, by name, raping his mum. For a joke. :rolleyes:
Aside from the fact my son doesn't have a disability, speaking hypothetically, it would depend on the nature and the spirit of the joke.
You stated in an earlier post that your son might have a disability.
I would never laugh at jokes making fun of my son's disability whatever form they take-ulitmately it's laughing at someone who cannot defend themselves.
Yeah, we've already had that line. I didn't agree with it then. I think he is a talented comedian who lets himself down from time to time by attacking the already bullied and disregarded.
Why? Do you suggest that no one has any right to take issue with someone else's child being attacked? I hope I don't have to rely on people like you for support if anyone ever has a go at one of my children.
but he is not having a go at your children is he?
like i8 said it was a cruel joke, i am not defending frankie boyle but for this having a go at him because of a direct joke at poor harvey is going 2 far, his mother quite rightly so should defend her son, she is a big girl i dont think she needs help defending her son
You stated in an earlier post that your son might have a disability.
I would never laugh at jokes making fun of my son's disability whatever form they take-ulitmately it's laughing at someone who cannot defend themselves.
You should look again at what you're defending.
I'm still waiting for anything tangible that shows that people who laugh at such jokes escalate to physically attacking disabled people...
Regardless of any petty arguments on here about the whys and wherefores....I used to find FB hilarious but now he's just out to shock rather than shock AND be funny. He really bores me in his in-yer-face quest to be the most shocking comedian there is, to the point where I find him bland.
I'm still waiting for anything tangible that shows that people who laugh at such jokes escalate to physically attacking disabled people...
If the general public, media etc. find it acceptable to make fun of the learning disabled and support high profile people like FB making jokes about them for a laugh then it doesn't take much imagination to work out what message is given out to the low life who think it's fun to physically and verbally attack and harass the learning disabled.
If the general public, media etc. find it acceptable to make fun of the learning disabled and support high profile people like FB making jokes about them for a laugh then it doesn't take much imagination to work out what message is given out to the low life who think it's fun to physically and verbally attack and harass the learning disabled.
If you don't understand that, it's your problem.
I larfed out loud. You have no evidence to suggest that even a single person who laughs at FB feels that way, you literally are making it up as you go along.
like i8 said it was a cruel joke, i am not defending frankie boyle but for this having a go at him because of a direct joke at poor harvey is going 2 far, his mother quite rightly so should defend her son, she is a big girl i dont think she needs help defending her son
I'm defending the learning disabled and am against the whole idea that it's fine to make fun of them in the name of 'edgy', shock effect humour.
If the general public, media etc. find it acceptable to make fun of the learning disabled and support high profile people like FB making jokes about them for a laugh then it doesn't take much imagination to work out what message is given out to the low life who think it's fun to physically and verbally attack and harass the learning disabled.
I larfed out loud. You have no evidence to suggest that even a single person who laughs at FB feels that way, you literally are making it up as you go along.
Read the post carefully before you respond and stop twisting my words.
He's sick and uses shock humor to get attention and headlines. Something is badly wrong with him if he finds humor in Jade Goody's last weeks or Harvey Price's disabilities.
He's sick and uses shock humor to get attention and headlines. Something is badly wrong with him if he finds humor in Jade Goody's last weeks or Harvey Price's disabilities.
He doesn't have anything to say, so he just insults unpopular celebs, or their kids, in order to get a cheap laugh.
He's sick and uses shock humor to get attention and headlines. Something is badly wrong with him if he finds humor in Jade Goody's last weeks or Harvey Price's disabilities.
He's hoping that by being 'edgy' people will overlook the fact that his material is actually quite poor. Take away the shock factor, and you're left with a very average comic who for some reason has been given the kind of opportunity most comics would relish, but has managed to screw it up badly by churning out standard 'controversial' material which isn't very good, far less funny.
Comments
Two jokes he made, one is horrible (the custody one) but is just that and has no broader consequences, well not ones that would trouble the law.
The second (the strong bloke to prevent him f-ing her) is problematic and has more trouble associated with it.
Firstly it plays on a long held stereotype of disabled people that they have sexually deviant behaviours. Do some research if you doubt this. Secondly, and if you substituted that he was disabled with that he was/is black, it could be construed as incitement to hatred. It is no less discriminatory because it is based on his disability rather than race; there appears to be widespread social non-acceptance of jokes of that ilk based on race, which is why Manning and Brown were/are not on tele anymore, I see no reason why jokes based on disability on somehow acceptable and tolerated.
It is completely true that individual races and religions are able to argue back and retaliate now, whereas people with a disability are largely not able. This fact alone should make jokes about disability unacceptable; it's not 'edgy' or 'brave' its actually cowardly to pick on someone who cant argue back or mock you in return. It's not 'breaking taboos' - it's being a ****.
Of course its just wrong to never include disability in humour, Gervais, love him or hate him, does it all the time, but the difference is that rarely are people with disability the brunt of the joke; the vast majority of the time its everyone else's attitudes or expectations that are.
As for comedians jokes making people go out and do 'bad things' well no, there's no evidence for that, however two things are true:
- there are enough crimes and hatred towards disabled people committed in this country right now, which display an underlying ignorance and discirminaton, and
- people' attitudes while possibly not created by one comedians act, are quite possible encouraged and validated by the opinion of others. Try having cerebral palsy in the 70s/80s when everyone would go up to you with a mocking 'disabled person impersonation' and go "joey" in your face, and then say cruelty cant be encouraged by whats on tv.
Agree, I see far more commonalities between FB and FG than with Manning.
No I'm not. I was genuinely interested to read your response to my questions.
It's actually funny that people that do not Know how to defend themselves always resort to insults. I was actually giving you the opportunity to explain how can you make an assessment of me in a couple of posts. I have lots of heated discussions in this forums and not once in my life felt the need to turn the discussion personal, but on the other hand a lot people seem totally unable to keep a discussion at a certain level. Pity.
Please please please tell me where I have resorted to insults.
Oh please. Do I have to?
Are you going to be precious and say, no, no, i actually didn't wrote it? Are you that type? I didn't thought you were, you're posts seem quite direct.
You tired me already.:yawn:
Yes you do. :rolleyes:
I am already thinking that you know you are going to fall flat on your face with that comment.
Yes. That freedom of speech is not intended to protect persecution for political and religious belief, but to protect your right to go on TV and talk about a disabled kid, by name, raping his mum. For a joke. :rolleyes:
I salute your noble cause, oh FB fans.
"The title of this thread is itself kind of ironic. I wouldn't call you an animal but..."
"Precisely".
Come on are you really really going to give me the precious answer you have in store for me?
I would never laugh at jokes making fun of my son's disability whatever form they take-ulitmately it's laughing at someone who cannot defend themselves.
You should look again at what you're defending.
Hypothetically, what if it was a joke like Frankie's - i.e. that you're needed to prevent your disabled son from trying to rape your wife?
but he is not having a go at your children is he?
like i8 said it was a cruel joke, i am not defending frankie boyle but for this having a go at him because of a direct joke at poor harvey is going 2 far, his mother quite rightly so should defend her son, she is a big girl i dont think she needs help defending her son
I'm still waiting for anything tangible that shows that people who laugh at such jokes escalate to physically attacking disabled people...
I'd be more shocked if Harry Hill said f*ck!
If the general public, media etc. find it acceptable to make fun of the learning disabled and support high profile people like FB making jokes about them for a laugh then it doesn't take much imagination to work out what message is given out to the low life who think it's fun to physically and verbally attack and harass the learning disabled.
If you don't understand that, it's your problem.
I larfed out loud. You have no evidence to suggest that even a single person who laughs at FB feels that way, you literally are making it up as you go along.
I'm defending the learning disabled and am against the whole idea that it's fine to make fun of them in the name of 'edgy', shock effect humour.
Read the post carefully before you respond and stop twisting my words.
Right...Where are the insults?
He doesn't have anything to say, so he just insults unpopular celebs, or their kids, in order to get a cheap laugh.
He's hoping that by being 'edgy' people will overlook the fact that his material is actually quite poor. Take away the shock factor, and you're left with a very average comic who for some reason has been given the kind of opportunity most comics would relish, but has managed to screw it up badly by churning out standard 'controversial' material which isn't very good, far less funny.