Crosswords6 mins ago
Jo Brand - Comedy Or Incitement?
252 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
andy-hughes
/// Absolutely - it's hardly reasonable of the BBC to set up a programme whose remit is to take conversation to the edge of acceptability, ///
Great I can then look forward to the BBC inviting the likes of Tommy Robinson onto their show then?
Somehow I think that I will have to wait for a very long time.
/// Absolutely - it's hardly reasonable of the BBC to set up a programme whose remit is to take conversation to the edge of acceptability, ///
Great I can then look forward to the BBC inviting the likes of Tommy Robinson onto their show then?
Somehow I think that I will have to wait for a very long time.
spath - // OK, so the comedy of a bygone era, can't be compared to that of what Jo Brand said..
The comedy of a by gone era would offend a large % of viewers, be them black people being offended of racism, or women being offended over sexism or large populations of people being offended by social stereotypes. //
In essence that is true, but the reasons why comparisons don't stand up are rather broader than that -
Society as a whole has developed and moved on from the 1970's, and as humour is an integral part of society, it has developed and moved on.
It's not possible to compare like with like in terms of Ms. Brand's comments measured against 1970's comedians, so it's not really worth pursuing that line of debate I believe.
// What Jo Brand said offended 19 people, not a large % of the audience at all. //
That's not strictly accurate - it offended 19 people who were sufficiently offended to make a complaint - there are no statistics for the numbers of people who may have been offended, but not sufficiently to take action and make their complaint official.
// There for, this comedy is not comparable to racism, sexism, social stereotyping or any other comedy of a "by gone era". //
For the reason I have given, that conclusion is invalid, but more because of the inability to compare two styles of humour.
The comedy of a by gone era would offend a large % of viewers, be them black people being offended of racism, or women being offended over sexism or large populations of people being offended by social stereotypes. //
In essence that is true, but the reasons why comparisons don't stand up are rather broader than that -
Society as a whole has developed and moved on from the 1970's, and as humour is an integral part of society, it has developed and moved on.
It's not possible to compare like with like in terms of Ms. Brand's comments measured against 1970's comedians, so it's not really worth pursuing that line of debate I believe.
// What Jo Brand said offended 19 people, not a large % of the audience at all. //
That's not strictly accurate - it offended 19 people who were sufficiently offended to make a complaint - there are no statistics for the numbers of people who may have been offended, but not sufficiently to take action and make their complaint official.
// There for, this comedy is not comparable to racism, sexism, social stereotyping or any other comedy of a "by gone era". //
For the reason I have given, that conclusion is invalid, but more because of the inability to compare two styles of humour.
"For the reason I have given, that conclusion is invalid"
In your opinion.
In my opinion my assessment and conclusions are very valid.
Racism and sexism use to be acceptable. They are no longer.
Comparing a non racist and sexist joke to that of a racist and sexist joke is moot.
This "joke" can't be compared to the by gone era.
In your opinion.
In my opinion my assessment and conclusions are very valid.
Racism and sexism use to be acceptable. They are no longer.
Comparing a non racist and sexist joke to that of a racist and sexist joke is moot.
This "joke" can't be compared to the by gone era.
Ag - // Andy, I'm guessing that anyone who is defending Jo Brand must be considered a 'leftie'...
This is not about politics, it is whether her comments are within the bounds of comedy or causing incitement.... //
I agree entirely on both counts.
I am endeavouring to stick to the thrust of your OP - we are not discussing whether or not what Ms Brand said was funny, but whether or not it was incitement to violence.
I believe that it was not, and that is the point I am defending, rather than the humour, or otherwise, of the comment, which is a matter of personal choice.
This is not about politics, it is whether her comments are within the bounds of comedy or causing incitement.... //
I agree entirely on both counts.
I am endeavouring to stick to the thrust of your OP - we are not discussing whether or not what Ms Brand said was funny, but whether or not it was incitement to violence.
I believe that it was not, and that is the point I am defending, rather than the humour, or otherwise, of the comment, which is a matter of personal choice.
AOG - // andy-hughes
/// Absolutely - it's hardly reasonable of the BBC to set up a programme whose remit is to take conversation to the edge of acceptability, ///
Great I can then look forward to the BBC inviting the likes of Tommy Robinson onto their show then?
Somehow I think that I will have to wait for a very long time. //
So do I - 'Tommy Robinson' is indeed a comedian, he makes me laugh on a regular basis, but since his actual raison d'etre is actually bigotry fear-mongering and physical violence, he is unlikely to b e considered for his occasional and unintentional comedic abilities, which are entirely a by-product of the rest of his endless appalling behaviour.
/// Absolutely - it's hardly reasonable of the BBC to set up a programme whose remit is to take conversation to the edge of acceptability, ///
Great I can then look forward to the BBC inviting the likes of Tommy Robinson onto their show then?
Somehow I think that I will have to wait for a very long time. //
So do I - 'Tommy Robinson' is indeed a comedian, he makes me laugh on a regular basis, but since his actual raison d'etre is actually bigotry fear-mongering and physical violence, he is unlikely to b e considered for his occasional and unintentional comedic abilities, which are entirely a by-product of the rest of his endless appalling behaviour.
andy-hughes
/// But since we are not discussing the humour of comedians from a generation ago, I am sure we can avoid diverting the thread by discussing them further. ///
You always use this tactic when you are show up for your double standards and sheer hypocrisy.
I am not diverting the thread, since it is about comedy and offensiveness.
You rightly say that Bernard Manning and Jim Davison were yesterday's comedians and we have moved on since then, but if you class what Jo Brand has joked about, the throwing of acid over someone instead of milkshake can be classed as "moving on since then" then that says more about you and others that agree with you, or even the times that we now live in.
/// But since we are not discussing the humour of comedians from a generation ago, I am sure we can avoid diverting the thread by discussing them further. ///
You always use this tactic when you are show up for your double standards and sheer hypocrisy.
I am not diverting the thread, since it is about comedy and offensiveness.
You rightly say that Bernard Manning and Jim Davison were yesterday's comedians and we have moved on since then, but if you class what Jo Brand has joked about, the throwing of acid over someone instead of milkshake can be classed as "moving on since then" then that says more about you and others that agree with you, or even the times that we now live in.
spath - // "For the reason I have given, that conclusion is invalid"
In your opinion. //
No - not in my opinion, in fact.
You have stated that " … 19 people were offended …" and used that as a basis for your conclusion.
My point is that 19 people made an official complaint, and that is not proof t only 19 people were offended - that is not my opinion, that is a fact.
In your opinion. //
No - not in my opinion, in fact.
You have stated that " … 19 people were offended …" and used that as a basis for your conclusion.
My point is that 19 people made an official complaint, and that is not proof t only 19 people were offended - that is not my opinion, that is a fact.
AOG //then that says more about you and others that agree with you, or even the times that we now live in.//
What about the BBC?
Not forgetting too AOG, that only 19 formal complaints were logged by Ofcom. It doesn't appear to have stirred up that much fury probably because not as many people are offended as you think?
What about the BBC?
Not forgetting too AOG, that only 19 formal complaints were logged by Ofcom. It doesn't appear to have stirred up that much fury probably because not as many people are offended as you think?
AOG - // /// But since we are not discussing the humour of comedians from a generation ago, I am sure we can avoid diverting the thread by discussing them further. ///
You always use this tactic when you are show up for your double standards and sheer hypocrisy. //
I don't agree that I am exhibiting double standards and / or hypocrisy, sheer or otherwise, but I am not willing to derail the thread by pursuing that rudeness.
// I am not diverting the thread, since it is about comedy and offensiveness. //
Actually, it's about incitement, but the debate does develop, so I will let that pass, again in the interests of staying on track.
// You rightly say that Bernard Manning and Jim Davison were yesterday's comedians and we have moved on since then, but if you class what Jo Brand has joked about, the throwing of acid over someone instead of milkshake can be classed as "moving on since then" then that says more about you and others that agree with you, or even the times that we now live in. //
It probably would say more about me, but since I did not say that, it clearly doesn't.
You always use this tactic when you are show up for your double standards and sheer hypocrisy. //
I don't agree that I am exhibiting double standards and / or hypocrisy, sheer or otherwise, but I am not willing to derail the thread by pursuing that rudeness.
// I am not diverting the thread, since it is about comedy and offensiveness. //
Actually, it's about incitement, but the debate does develop, so I will let that pass, again in the interests of staying on track.
// You rightly say that Bernard Manning and Jim Davison were yesterday's comedians and we have moved on since then, but if you class what Jo Brand has joked about, the throwing of acid over someone instead of milkshake can be classed as "moving on since then" then that says more about you and others that agree with you, or even the times that we now live in. //
It probably would say more about me, but since I did not say that, it clearly doesn't.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
News29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles37 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.