Well I'm morally ouraged and offended at that joke.

So people watching a comedian telling non pc jokes in a private place shouldnt bother you surely by those standards ??

B L Zeebub did you see the Monty Python clip I posted. It's mocking homosexuals isn't it? Graham Chapman was gay of course. And then they are told to stop, because it's silly and wrong.

Now is it funny? Is it wrong to laugh at it? Do you think you can object to humour you find offensive, or do you go further and think it should be denied a platform for others who don't mind it?

My mum absolutely loves all Jim's VHS/DVD's.

However Chubby kind of pisses her off

Absolutely. If you like that kind of humour, knock yourself out. The fact still remains that one involves consenting adults getting up to all sorts in the privacy of their own home without involving others. The other involves consenting adults listening to jokes based on ignorance and bigotry that usually targets certain races and minorities.

If Linda was joking, which I doubt, then yes, joking about having sex with other man while your now dead husband watched is SICK!! Very tasteless, involving a poor dead criminal, that's no subject matter for comedy. Ban all comedy now.

Actually start with Mrs Brown's Boys and then lets see.

Shaming language followed by a muddled rant. The usual tactics of the PC brigade

These things may be perfectly acceptable to some but not to others.
If the husband, wife and anyone else involved in the first scenario agree with what is about to take place and consent to it as long as no actual laws (such as outraging public decency by doing it in public) are broken then it's acceptable to them at least.
The telling of non-PC jokes is perfectly acceptable to an audience who know what sort of jokes they are about to hear. I'm no fan of Chubby Brown but if I bought a ticket to one of his performances and knew beforehand what sort of 'humour' his act consisted of, and there are warning printed on the posters, tickets etc; then why would I find his non-PC material unacceptable?
We seem to see and hear the word 'offended' bandied about quite a lot nowadays but it is mostly used as a tool by minority interests to shut down discussion and debate and to shape opinion into line with that of the offended minority.
I find that quite offensive

how can anyone be offended by this! what is the connection with BB?

You don't think racist 'humour' adds to the overall racism in a society?
You don't think some people, thick enough to laugh at hate-filled racist 'humour', then feel justified in feeling racist towards people?

Old ladies are not immune, believe me.

I am I am afraid. My full name is Anna.

My son has nicked my headphones, so I haven't watched it. and can't tell you whether I would find it offensive.

Talking specifically about Jim Davidson's humour, yes, I find it offensive and hate-filled. It positively encourages racism, homophobia and sexism.

What individuals find offensive be it group sex or some comedians is down to thier own beliefs values and morals, whilst I may find something someone does offensive because I am judging it on my own set of values and experience others may find things I do or say offensive for the same reason.
What I think is unacceptable is forcing one set of beliefs and values on us all. A finds group sex offensive therefore everyone who indulges is wrong, B finds certain comedians offensive so therefore anyone who finds them funny is wrong. It's the belief so some that their view is right and if you don't agree with it then your a bigot/racist/homophobic/prude that I think is unacceptable. So what if someone likes the odd sex party so what if someone finds certain jokes funny if they are not directly harming someone else it's nobodies buisness.
As for the poster saying people listen to racist jokes and then go out and discriminate what utter tosh people don't change their behaviours because of jokes

We've established you are a South Park fan.

Going by this post I presume you didn't laugh at the episode where Mr Garrison rounded up the people to get rid of the rich people who were all black and at the end says "at least I got rid of all those damn N-word's"?

Or the episode where Randy is on Family Fortunes and has this N-GGERS puzzle to solve with the clue being people who annoy you and instead of saying naggers says N-words?

Yet you remain a South Park fan? Is this selective outrage we are seeing?

The connection is purely the thread topic- can humourless people tell others not to do offensive jokes, and can we help what we find funny even if its not politically correct. Sometimes, like much comedy, and that Monty Python sketch (and LOTS of their material), it's funny BECAUSE you know it's indefensible. They mocked the disabled you know. Some people can't handle that about comedy, or come down on the side of 'ban/deplore it anyway, the risks outweigh the laughter.'

Using the beloved Pythons prove that you can't have one rule for Jim Davidson and another for people that went to Oxbridge. Or their fans.

Some is the word .
You've used it at last.

If this is true what makes some people from ethnic minorities who don't attend comedy performances racist because there is no doubt at all that a significant number of them are?
If you are a white Englishman, a Sikh or a person of Afro Caribbean origin what do you suppose would be the reaction of, say, a Pakistani Muslim father if you asked for his daughters hand in marriage?
My comment is not aimed at any particular community, I have simply used this example to highlight how silly the comment with it's implications of racism caused by 'humour' that I have quoted seems,

They do directly harm people.

Unless we are laughing at the stupidity of the racist, we are laughing at the victims of racism and those with racist views feel entitled to carry on being racist. After all, it's just a laugh, isn't it?

The people who have a penchant for group sex aren't trying to get cheap laughs by taking the piss out of other races and minorities with jokes based on ignorance and bigotry. Theirs is a self-contained pleasure. The other brings in other people as the butt of questionable humour. I thought you'd have noticed the difference.

This "laugh with, not laugh at" business is patently a load of cobblers which ignores a basic fact of comedy. I'm going to go so far as to say it's a stupid thing to say. Yes, stupid. A person falls down a manhole / slips on banana skin / disappears into open grave, we laugh. Jokes are about a truth revealed, often in a surprising way, and often there's a fear at the heart of the truth, which is the cause of baring of the teeth in other primates. We laugh at the person slipping on a banana skin because it speaks to us of the truth of our own fallibility. We like/need to think we are "all that", but the terrifying truth is we can be undone by a simple, stationary piece of vegetable matter.

So the reason a most -ist jokes aren't funny any more, purely on a technical basis, is that they rely on a truth which isn't the truth. For example all black people are thieves, all Chinese people look identical, all blondes are dumb, or all homosexual men have anal sex. For the joke to work everyone has to share that prejudice to start with. Thirty, forty years ago more people shared those prejudices, so the jokes worked. The comedians of the time supplied to that demand. If a joke doesn't get laughs, a comedian drops it.

It is always possible to subvert though. A great joke from Edinburgh the other year went like this: "It's so cool to be at the festival again, you get to bump into famous comedians in bars and in the street. Yesterday I was walking down Prince's Street and I saw Chris Rock, and I had to go up to him and say thanks for his N***** routine, he'd really helped to forward understanding between the races and help me sort out the issues better in my own head. But of course, it wasn't him!" Also: "What do you call a black man flying a plane? A pilot you racist cünt."

If Jim Davidson can manage to update his material like that, to match the times, then he might manage a slight comeback. I imagine he'll still be doing variations on "My mother-in-law is so fat..." which is a matter of taste really. There is a common experience of men being fearful of their mother-in-law because they don't want to watch their wife turn into that. That's enough of a shared truth to support the joke. But like I say, it's a matter of taste. As people have been pointing out, Davidson must look at Frankie Boyle, Jimmy Carr, even Micky Flanagan and wonder what's going on.

But for absolutely EVERY joke, there will be a context in which it can be funny. Perhaps the bottom line really is, "You have to laugh don't you." I think maybe it's important to be able to laugh at absolutely anything, to stave off the fear. It's proven to be good for your physical health. The BrassEye Paedogeddon Special, for example, or that satirical piece Chris Morris and Armando Iannucci did after 9/11 with a picture of the smoking towers and the headline YESSSSSSS!, or Stewart Lee's infamous "Vomiting into the gaping anus of Christ" routine.

Er, blimey, sorry, off topic and too long to bother reading.



Sexual activity has long since stopped being exclusively about procreation, so what any consenting adults do for fun is their business. In my view the people who get their knickers in a twist about what other people get up to probably need to sort their own sex life out.

Bravo.

If you ever see me saying that racist humour is the only cause of racism in society, you can get back to me.

Then you're agreeing with a fallacy.

The Jim haters started posting videos of Jim's comedy on here.
If they were so concerned about society they wouldn't have done that, now thanks to them everyone who watched it, is now racist, sexist and homophobic
Because no one has there own brain, apart from saintly people like you. "beelzebub" preaching lmfao

I beg to differ.