Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

I thought of this joke today.

Did you hear the one about the Kosher Diamond merchants who had a fight over a couple of diamonds...?

It was a Dual Jew Duel over dual Jewels!!

Apparently it is objectively antisemitic. So I had to take it down.

THoughts?

[LuckyR]

I thought of this joke today.

Did you hear the one about the Kosher Diamond merchants who had a fight over a couple of diamonds...?

It was a Dual Jew Duel over dual Jewels!!

Apparently it is objectively antisemitic. So I had to take it down.

THoughts?

Obviously not antisemitic, since it's humor rests solely on the similarity of the pronunciation of Jew and jewel. However the vast majority of "Jewish jokes" are. Though neither of us is surprised that there exists a self appointed member of the thought police who happens to be on duty. However extrapolating the fact that such a member of that police force exists is a far cry from representing the "World". In other words social media giving every single human a voice basically makes each individual opinion essentially meaningless. Back when only a few, powerful people had access to a bull horn meant (at least) that each voice had a silent constituancy behind it. Now it's just a bored gen z'er in his mum's basement.

Ho hum.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think there is a bigger issue here. Much so-called 'humour' involves laughing at others, ridiculing them, perhaps in a situation where — maybe??? — sympathy would be a more appropriate response than derision? And yes, many of these 'jokes' are about anonymous people, not particular victims, but what does that change? Cruelty probably remains cruel even when the object of our humorous scorn is a made-up person, doesn't it?

Perhaps these 'jokes' aimed at anonymous people can be seen as similar to target shooting with a gun, as opposed to shooting actual people? One is not the other, for sure, but one is training for the other, isn't it? Perhaps these attacks on anonymous folk just disguise the real (???) intention, which might be to teach or learn how to ridicule other people, to maximum effect?

Is this the attitude of "thought police", or is it a reaction to cruelty that is widely ignored? After all, even if such impersonal cruelty is OK, doesn't it inure us to real cruelty, aimed at real people? For the humour we are describing is also applied, in the real world, to real people, with the apparent intention of demeaning them.

"Oh, I was only joking!" is intended only to make the victim feel they have to endure it, and pretend it's OK, but the hurt is real...? This is just the bully, attempting to deny their unpleasant behaviour. This is something bullies are known to do, isn't it?

Just my 2 pennyworth.

[LuckyR]

I think there is a bigger issue here. Much so-called 'humour' involves laughing at others, ridiculing them, perhaps in a situation where — maybe??? — sympathy would be a more appropriate response than derision? And yes, many of these 'jokes' are about anonymous people, not particular victims, but what does that change? Cruelty probably remains cruel even when the object of our humorous scorn is a made-up person, doesn't it?

Perhaps these 'jokes' aimed at anonymous people can be seen as similar to target shooting with a gun, as opposed to shooting actual people? One is not the other, for sure, but one is training for the other, isn't it? Perhaps these attacks on anonymous folk just disguise the real (???) intention, which might be to teach or learn how to ridicule other people, to maximum effect?

Is this the attitude of "thought police", or is it a reaction to cruelty that is widely ignored? After all, even if such impersonal cruelty is OK, doesn't it inure us to real cruelty, aimed at real people? For the humour we are describing is also applied, in the real world, to real people, with the apparent intention of demeaning them.

"Oh, I was only joking!" is intended only to make the victim feel they have to endure it, and pretend it's OK, but the hurt is real...? This is just the bully, attempting to deny their unpleasant behaviour. This is something bullies are known to do, isn't it?

Just my 2 pennyworth.

I see the logic in your post and don't disagree with it. Though the joke in the OP is using the fact one set of words has a funny sound, the fact that one of the words is "Jew", is a coincidence. Thus your comments, though meritous as mentioned, don't apply here.

My comment on "thought police" was referencing the knee jerk, "it's got Jew in the joke, it must be racist", laziness.

[Pattern-chaser]

My comment on "thought police" was referencing the knee jerk, "it's got Jew in the joke, it must be racist", laziness.

Yes, and yet I see something here that you don't mention. The so-called 'joke' has to work really hard to set itself up, only to deliver a punch-line that is barely funny. It feels like the speaker might want to express an anti-Semitic sentiment, but seeks to disguise it with 'humour', to get away with it? Perhaps that's over-sensitive, or reading too much into a feeble attempt at humour; I don't know. It's difficult to tell when we can't know the mindset or intentions of the 'joker', their audience, and so on. We can only guess.

[LuckyR]

My comment on "thought police" was referencing the knee jerk, "it's got Jew in the joke, it must be racist", laziness.

Yes, and yet I see something here that you don't mention. The so-called 'joke' has to work really hard to set itself up, only to deliver a punch-line that is barely funny. It feels like the speaker might want to express an anti-Semitic sentiment, but seeks to disguise it with 'humour', to get away with it? Perhaps that's over-sensitive, or reading too much into a feeble attempt at humour; I don't know. It's difficult to tell when we can't know the mindset or intentions of the 'joker', their audience, and so on. We can only guess.

Well guessing is one option. The other is evaluate what you know. Thus my conclusion that it's not racist (on it's face).

[Xenophon]

I thought of this joke today.

Did you hear the one about the Kosher Diamond merchants who had a fight over a couple of diamonds...?

It was a Dual Jew Duel over dual Jewels!!

Apparently it is objectively antisemitic. So I had to take it down.

THoughts?

I see nothing antisemitic. It's word-play, pure and simple. But the U.S. has for some decades been Israeli occupied territory, so different rules apply. I mean, an anti-Israel gaffe was enough to set the hounds on Harvard's president. Any group than can get a black woman purged in these times has superpowers indeed.

[Sculptor1]

I thought of this joke today.

Did you hear the one about the Kosher Diamond merchants who had a fight over a couple of diamonds...?

It was a Dual Jew Duel over dual Jewels!!

Apparently it is objectively antisemitic. So I had to take it down.

THoughts?

I see nothing antisemitic. It's word-play, pure and simple. But the U.S. has for some decades been Israeli occupied territory, so different rules apply. I mean, an anti-Israel gaffe was enough to set the hounds on Harvard's president. Any group than can get a black woman purged in these times has superpowers indeed.

Yes it's almost as if there is an International Zionist conspiracy!!
You've only to look at the genocide, sorry "collateral damage" in Gaza to know who controls the media.

[Xenophon]

I think there is a bigger issue here. Much so-called 'humour' involves laughing at others, ridiculing them, perhaps in a situation where — maybe??? — sympathy would be a more appropriate response than derision? And yes, many of these 'jokes' are about anonymous people, not particular victims, but what does that change? Cruelty probably remains cruel even when the object of our humorous scorn is a made-up person, doesn't it?

Perhaps these 'jokes' aimed at anonymous people can be seen as similar to target shooting with a gun, as opposed to shooting actual people? One is not the other, for sure, but one is training for the other, isn't it? Perhaps these attacks on anonymous folk just disguise the real (???) intention, which might be to teach or learn how to ridicule other people, to maximum effect?

Is this the attitude of "thought police", or is it a reaction to cruelty that is widely ignored? After all, even if such impersonal cruelty is OK, doesn't it inure us to real cruelty, aimed at real people? For the humour we are describing is also applied, in the real world, to real people, with the apparent intention of demeaning them.

"Oh, I was only joking!" is intended only to make the victim feel they have to endure it, and pretend it's OK, but the hurt is real...? This is just the bully, attempting to deny their unpleasant behaviour. This is something bullies are known to do, isn't it?

Just my 2 pennyworth.

There's an old Buddhist teaching. If one steps on a thorn, he can either try to cover the earth with leather, or he can try covering his feet. Ditto with verbal slings and barbs. I can try and regulate every word everyone utters, or I can develop a thick hide. If the worst thing that happened to you today is that a right-handed wanker called you a left-handed wanker, you know what? You just had a pretty good day. A buddy of mine died of cancer in his thirties. He opined that "God had a pretty rough sense of humor." That's fact. Get over it. The alternative is the Yanks' present slow plunge into neo-Stalinism. Enjoy.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think there is a bigger issue here. Much so-called 'humour' involves laughing at others, ridiculing them, perhaps in a situation where — maybe??? — sympathy would be a more appropriate response than derision? And yes, many of these 'jokes' are about anonymous people, not particular victims, but what does that change? Cruelty probably remains cruel even when the object of our humorous scorn is a made-up person, doesn't it?

Perhaps these 'jokes' aimed at anonymous people can be seen as similar to target shooting with a gun, as opposed to shooting actual people? One is not the other, for sure, but one is training for the other, isn't it? Perhaps these attacks on anonymous folk just disguise the real (???) intention, which might be to teach or learn how to ridicule other people, to maximum effect?

Is this the attitude of "thought police", or is it a reaction to cruelty that is widely ignored? After all, even if such impersonal cruelty is OK, doesn't it inure us to real cruelty, aimed at real people? For the humour we are describing is also applied, in the real world, to real people, with the apparent intention of demeaning them.

"Oh, I was only joking!" is intended only to make the victim feel they have to endure it, and pretend it's OK, but the hurt is real...? This is just the bully, attempting to deny their unpleasant behaviour. This is something bullies are known to do, isn't it?

Just my 2 pennyworth.

There's an old Buddhist teaching. If one steps on a thorn, he can either try to cover the earth with leather, or he can try covering his feet. Ditto with verbal slings and barbs. I can try and regulate every word everyone utters, or I can develop a thick hide. If the worst thing that happened to you today is that a right-handed wanker called you a left-handed wanker, you know what? You just had a pretty good day. A buddy of mine died of cancer in his thirties. He opined that "God had a pretty rough sense of humor." That's fact. Get over it. The alternative is the Yanks' present slow plunge into neo-Stalinism. Enjoy.

I am not seeking to "regulate", necessarily, but only to describe, and bring out into the open, the ways we treat one another. Our species' success depends on our social co-operation. Our anti-social habits work against our primary advantage: willing co-operation.