|
Midig posted:Well, not necessarily attacking someone. But dealing with difficult subjects. Now you're moving the goal posts.
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
Crain posted:According to the Daily Mail they are looking at this as an offense under The Communications Act of 2003 Oh here they say: quote:A Scotland Police spokeswoman stated that Markus was arrested for “the publication of offensive material online (improper use of electronic communications under the Communications Act 2003).”
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Oh here they say: Ah, well there you go. So basically violating broadcast standards.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Plenty of jokes don't deal with difficult subjects, though. I see no reason why you want to exclude them other than it's inconvenient for your argument. Well, I guess if you took what I said literally and ignored the context you might think that there is an almost infinite amount of hypothetical jokes that are not sexist, homophobic, racist, offensive, unsympathetic etc. and it was wrong of me to not point that out, but being charitable is not your strong suit. Midig fucked around with this message at 20:13 on May 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Midig posted:Well, I guess if you took what I said literally and ignored the context you might think that there is an almost infinite amount of hypothetical jokes that are not sexist, homophobic, racist, offensive, unsympathetic etc. and it was wrong of me to not point that out, but being charitable is not your strong suit. This is incredibly dumb, even for you.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
loving lol. So it seems like the dude hosed up and basically guaranteed himself a guilty judgement: Communications Act 2003 - Section 127 posted:
 This is why you don't say poo poo without talking to a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
The only media covering this case initially were those trying to beat an "anti-PC" drum. It's worth considering why that is.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The only media covering this case initially were those trying to beat an "anti-PC" drum. It's worth considering why that is. I see reference to it in Jewish media as well.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Midig posted:Well, I guess if you took what I said literally and ignored the context you might think that there is an almost infinite amount of hypothetical jokes that are not sexist, homophobic, racist, offensive, unsympathetic etc. and it was wrong of me to not point that out, but being charitable is not your strong suit. Say what you mean and mean what you say, it's not hard. Edit: I love your use of "hypothetical", as if non-offensive jokes don't actually exist except as a thought experiment. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 20:25 on May 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Crain posted:loving lol. So it seems like the dude hosed up and basically guaranteed himself a guilty judgement: OTOH perhaps there shouldn't be a law against mildly irritating people. Again, our laws make a lot of things illegal but are applied selectively.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
what kind of defence is that, anyway? i don't know what kind of maniac goes to that amount of effort just to annoy their girlfriend. i sing pop songs off key, works an absolute treat.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Lovechop posted:what kind of defence is that, anyway? i don't know what kind of maniac goes to that amount of effort just to annoy their girlfriend. i sing pop songs off key, works an absolute treat. turns out there's a shitload of idiots on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBt2714dcQo
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Say what you mean and mean what you say, it's not hard. They exist. They just tend to be really boring and are reserved for forced interactions.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Lovechop posted:what kind of defence is that, anyway? i don't know what kind of maniac goes to that amount of effort just to annoy their girlfriend. i sing pop songs off key, works an absolute treat. Originally I thought he was doing this to an ex-girlfriend, which made somewhat more sense even if it's a little odd to have that much access to your ex's dog. But yeah that too reeks of "Think of something think of something...I GOT IT! Wait poo poo that's made it worse..."
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Midig where is your YouTube where you detail in a 30 minute talking head video about what a really jokes
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
I believe that was his initial and fairly immediate statement when this first gained media attention, before he was arrested, it is quite possibly sincere.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Midig posted:They exist. They just tend to be really boring and are reserved for forced interactions. You should maybe go out into the world and see some forms of comedy besides /pol/ memes and rage comics from r/edgyHumor.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Midig where is your YouTube where you detail in a 30 minute talking head video about what a really jokes Someone did the work for me: >A thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline.< Maybe my laziness is a blessing to the world.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Midig posted:They exist. They just tend to be really boring and are reserved for forced interactions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr-ouyT1HhI
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I believe that was his initial and fairly immediate statement when this first gained media attention, before he was arrested, it is quite possibly sincere. Maybe, but it's still telling that his defense is "I was TRYING to be an rear end in a top hat".
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Deg7VrpHbM I love these kind of videos for some reason.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Crain posted:Maybe, but it's still telling that his defense is "I was TRYING to be an rear end in a top hat". Again, being a slight annoyance isn't generally supposed to be illegal.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Midig posted:They exist. They just tend to be really boring and are reserved for forced interactions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyKD4KagqbA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZGYrMwqU_A 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Midig posted:They exist. They just tend to be really boring and are reserved for forced interactions. Wow, suddenly I understand all of your posts in this thread
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Crain posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg Wait, Jim Carrey is still considered funny? I though we let all the bad poo poo from the 2000s behind. EDIT: He is an anti-vax shithead, my opinion is highly biased.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Again, being a slight annoyance isn't generally supposed to be illegal. filming yourself speaking hate speech and choosing to upload that to the internet, and encouraging people to watch it is illegal however, even if it's done "ironically" by saying it to a dog, cat, or houseplant
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Midig posted:Wait, Jim Carrey is still considered funny? I though we let all the bad poo poo from the 2000s behind. Still a good joke that's not "really boring and are reserved for forced interactions." Which is the point I'm making.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:filming yourself speaking hate speech and choosing to upload that to the internet, and encouraging people to watch it is illegal however, even if it's done "ironically" by saying it to a dog, cat, or houseplant Unless you broadcast it to the entire country via a paper or national radio show, in which case you get paid to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Will you literally melt into a puddle of reactionary goo if you say you don't have to be a shithead to be funny? Will your tongue catch fire in your mouth if you admit that you were wrong? One of the greatest comedic bits in human history is right there and doesn't even use a swear word, and it's like your soul will be rent asunder by alt-right demons if you acknowledge it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Will your tongue catch fire in your mouth if you admit that you were wrong? I think I did this more often then I would have liked to in the gassed thread. My tongue is still operational, interpret that any way you want to.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Midig posted:
You can spend the rest of the day deflecting and trying to shift the goalposts or you can just admit you made a bad argument. "Comedy can be hurtful and still be funny" is a defensible argument that can actually be applied to the situation we were talking about. "Most comedy is hurtful and anything that isn't is just puns or bad watercooler talk and forced interactions no one wants" is not.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Midig posted:I think I did this more often then I would have liked to in the gassed thread. My tongue is still operational, interpret that any way you want to. If you admit you were wrong, but then go back to defending these shitheels at any chance you get, it seems like maybe you didn't really internalize why you were wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Unless you broadcast it to the entire country via a paper or national radio show, in which case you get paid to do it. the hipocrisy of the system and its bias towards the upper classes is an argument to make that same punishment apply equally, not to allow anyone to say anything they want without consequence. i can't say "well rich people get away with murder" as an argument in support of free murder
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:If you admit you were wrong, but then go back to defending these shitheels at any chance you get, it seems like maybe you didn't really internalize why you were wrong. Well i can try to sum it up: I was wrong about TAA, guaranteed pedo I was wrong about the PDP thing because I didn't read that WSJ article thoroughly enough. I was wrong about Sam Harris. I gave him too much credit while having too many lovely views. I think there was way more in all the mess, but that is the biggest points I think.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
So is it, or is it not, possible to be funny without talking about "difficult subjects"?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:the hipocrisy of the system and its bias towards the upper classes is an argument to make that same punishment apply equally, not to allow anyone to say anything they want without consequence. i can't say "well rich people get away with murder" as an argument in support of free murder However in the persistent absence of any desire to make the law equally punitive, is making it unequally punitive more or less just than making it equally permissive? If the law is de-facto "murder is illegal only if you're poor" or in this case "hate speech is illegal mostly if nobody is listening to you anyway" is the enforcement of that law not simply a distraction from the state sponsored brand of xenophobia?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So is it, or is it not, possible to be funny without talking about "difficult subjects"? It can make me smirk. It has that power.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:However in the persistent absence of any desire to make the law equally punitive, is making it unequally punitive more or less just than making it equally permissive? do you have any other examples of men teaching dogs to be racist who were not prosecuted under scottish law? or are you just getting very specific here when you can no longer generalize about how other people are doing other things in other places and that means this guy shouldn't be punished somehow in this time and place because the world is too unfair
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Midig posted:It can make me smirk. It has that power. Take note everybody, this is what the top keks of 4chan will do to your mind. Abbot & Costello's greatest bit can make this broke-brained idiot smirk on a good day.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Again, being a slight annoyance isn't generally supposed to be illegal. You've never heard of disturbing the peace? Or sound ordinances?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:18
|
|
