Jo Brand's "throw acid not milk" at politicians joke

[no-no]

Sargon's tweet doesn't qualify as a joke imv. It's more a kind of pre-withdrawn rape threat.
But with Jo Brand's case it *literally* is a matter of the joke police, which is concerning.

The joke police are usually a bit more metaphorical, and Twitter-based.
Not paid officers.

No I'm not sure it's a joke either, it seems to have been more of a statement to expose her willingness to exaggerate the situation in order to bring in draconian internet laws, an end to internet anonymity indeed!

The idea was to get her to point to a non rape threat as an actual rape threat, thereby exposing her nonsense.

Sargon is a bit creepy at times though to say the least, shot himself in the foot imo but I don't think he was actually making a threat so in that sense it was a joke, in that his intention wasn't to threaten her. The only way we can perceive it as a threat is if like the judge in the dankula case we ignore context and intention.

 

[no-no]

I agree with a lot of this in principle, but I think the example of 'joke' that you've chosen is too weak.
It compromises the rest of the argument.

I'm sure if a better example isn't to hand, one will come along soon enough, in which case it would be interesting to see if anyone is persuaded.

yep, fair enough, he's not an easy person to defend.

That's what irritates me about this sort of thing, it puts you in the position of having to defend all sorts of people.

 

[8ball]

yep, fair enough, he's not an easy person to defend.

That's what irritates me about this sort of thing, it puts you in the position of having to defend all sorts of people.

Tricky business.
Imo a lot is down to how the psychology of humour works and if there was a better understanding of that we might be able to approach some things more maturely.
But instead it is either hard and fast rules, or default censorship of anything that causes discomfort (or a mix of both, with default censorship of ambiguous cases).

It annoys me that some elements on the right have a much better understanding of a lot of the dynamics going on than so much of the left.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Sargon's tweet doesn't qualify as a joke imv. It's more a kind of pre-withdrawn rape threat.
But with Jo Brand's case it *literally* is a matter of the joke police, which is concerning.

The joke police are usually a bit more metaphorical, and Twitter-based.
Not paid officers.

We need to get away from this idea that there is anything special about "jokes" that makes them magically better than whatever non-jokes are. Anyone can define anything as a joke after all. There is hyperbolic language and exaggeration to deliver a point which can be intended to be funny to specific audiences; that language still has consequences and context.

Brand joking about throwing battery acid over Farage is hyperbole that expresses frustration with an overwhelmingly unchallenged group and the apparent inability of any public protest - even those which get huge condemnation, like the milkshake thing - to really do anything effective. Benjamin joking that he "wouldn't even rape" Jess Phillips is part of an extended misogynist campaign by himself and many others to intimidate women in public life by ostensibly trivialising gender-based rape threats while repeating them. The former is better than the latter and it's not because of their joke status.

 

[8ball]

We need to get away from this idea that there is anything special about "jokes" that makes them magically better than whatever non-jokes are. Anyone can define anything as a joke after all. There is hyperbolic language and exaggeration to deliver a point which can be intended to be funny to specific audiences; that language still has consequences and context.

Brand joking about throwing battery acid over Farage is hyperbole that expresses frustration with an overwhelmingly unchallenged group and the apparent inability of any public protest - even those which get huge condemnation, like the milkshake thing - to really do anything effective. Benjamin joking that he "wouldn't even rape" Jess Phillips is part of an extended misogynist campaign by himself and many others to intimidate women in public life by ostensibly trivialising gender-based rape threats while repeating them. The former is better than the latter and it's not because of their joke status.

This is actually a pretty good example of what I was talking about earlier.
I don't disagree with the moral thrust in terms of the examples, the people, the power dynamics - but the final point you're trying to back up with these cases is easily summed up as "suppressing expression is fine so long as it's something I don't like".

The outcomes of this are that either you have the upper hand and you alienate yourself completely from those with the views you are suppressing, and anyone who may have any sympathies with them including any edge cases we could think of. Lots of consequences there, but that's the "good outcome".

The bad outcome is that you erode any embedded conventions of respecting expression from elements you disagree with, then lose power and find yourself on the wrong side of the cosh.

As for your actual point, it's true that jokes work in a different way to threats or slurs. It's not magic. It's psychology and linguistics.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is actually a pretty good example of what I was talking about earlier.
I don't disagree with the moral thrust in terms of the examples, the people, the power dynamics - but the final point you're trying to back up with these cases is easily summed up as "suppressing expression is fine so long as it's something I don't like".

The outcomes of this are that either you have the upper hand and you alienate yourself completely from those with the views you are suppressing, and anyone who may have any sympathies with them including any edge cases we could think of. Lots of consequences there, but that's the "good outcome".

The bad outcome is that you erode any embedded conventions of respecting expression from elements you disagree with, then lose power and find yourself on the wrong side of the cosh.

As for your actual point, it's true that jokes work in a different way to threats or slurs. It's not magic. It's psychology and linguistics.

Yeh magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will

 

[FridgeMagnet]

This is actually a pretty good example of what I was talking about earlier.
I don't disagree with the moral thrust in terms of the examples, the people, the power dynamics - but the final point you're trying to back up with these cases is easily summed up as "suppressing expression is fine so long as it's something I don't like".

The outcomes of this are that either you have the upper hand and you alienate yourself completely from those with the views you are suppressing, and anyone who may have any sympathies with them including any edge cases we could think of. Lots of consequences there, but that's the "good outcome".

The bad outcome is that you erode any embedded conventions of respecting expression from elements you disagree with, then lose power and find yourself on the wrong side of the cosh.

As for your actual point, it's true that jokes work in a different way to threats or slurs. It's not magic. It's psychology and linguistics.

You're literally playing to the current right wing talking points about "liberals want to ban things because they don't like them". Not only did I not say anything about "suppressing expression" (seriously mate) my opposition is not because "I don't like it". I don't like lots of things. It's because of what it is.

This is a very important point, because using that talking point deliberately distracts from the purpose and content of the speech being criticised. Benjamin or Boris or whoever are saying things with the intent to and effect of promoting an actively harmful social goal. That is the problem.

 

[8ball]

You're literally playing to the current right wing talking points about "liberals want to ban things because they don't like them". Not only did I not say anything about "suppressing expression" (seriously mate) my opposition is not because "I don't like it". I don't like lots of things. It's because of what it is.

This is a very important point, because using that talking point deliberately distracts from the purpose and content of the speech being criticised. Benjamin or Boris or whoever are saying things with the intent to and effect of promoting an actively harmful social goal. That is the problem.

So you've cast yourself as the virtuous knight in this particular story, never mind that there are those with very different perspectives to you who have done the same.

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind with any "this is why the left is fucked" vignettes, but just taking two small steps back and thinking in terms of bringing people on side, attracting troops to the cause, whatever you want to call it in terms of, let's say, the left's proclaimed mission for expanding justice and wellbeing.. in terms of all that stuff and also actual human progress in that direction, how is the current strategy actually going, would you say?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

So you've cast yourself as the virtuous knight in this particular story

yeah think I'll leave this then cheers, I've made my point

 

[8ball]

yeah think I'll leave this then cheers, I've made my point

Aye. Four legs good two legs bad it is.

 

[no-no]

We need to get away from this idea that there is anything special about "jokes" that makes them magically better than whatever non-jokes are. Anyone can define anything as a joke after all. There is hyperbolic language and exaggeration to deliver a point which can be intended to be funny to specific audiences; that language still has consequences and context.

Brand joking about throwing battery acid over Farage is hyperbole that expresses frustration with an overwhelmingly unchallenged group and the apparent inability of any public protest - even those which get huge condemnation, like the milkshake thing - to really do anything effective. Benjamin joking that he "wouldn't even rape" Jess Phillips is part of an extended misogynist campaign by himself and many others to intimidate women in public life by ostensibly trivialising gender-based rape threats while repeating them. The former is better than the latter and it's not because of their joke status.

I disagree.

"Anyone can define anything as a joke" That's not true, it would be very difficult to define clear threats or incitement as jokes.

I'd much rather have a situation where people can categorise their words as just jokes than one where the authorities can arbitrarily categorise our words as statements of intent, threat or even mere offence.

That's terrifying, why would you want to hand that sort of power over to the buffoons we have in westminster? If Jess Phillips had her way you'd have your real face up there instead of that avatar with a neat path leading to your address so the authorities can keep an eye on you, they can also choose to misconstrue your posts if they so wish because context and intent are irrelevant.

Jokes are special, so are songwriting, script writing or any number of other creative pursuits. Jo Brand, Sargon, Dankula are irresponsible but not criminal. These issues should be dealt with socially (which is a pretty effective way to do it as we've seen with #metoo)

It's ok to say mean things to people unless you cross the line into harassment, if your followers go on to harass someone you criticise then that is harassment but it can't be laid at the feet of whoever made the initial post or comment. We're all responsible for our own actions.

If someone goes on to attack farage and co in the future can we retrospectively pin the blame on Jo Brand? I don't think we can.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm kind of on the fence with the Boris decapitation thing tbf.

Not me. I've already sharpened up my entrenching tool. She's ready to go.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Late to the thread, but has anyone pointed out that caustic soda is a much better option than acid. Very easy to get your hands on and if the filth catch you just say you've got blocked drains

 

[cupid_stunt]

Late to the thread, but has anyone pointed out that caustic soda is a much better option than acid. Very easy to get your hands on and if the filth catch you just say you've got blocked drains

I opened various 'watched threads' in different tabs, by the time I got to this one I thought it was the 'How different psychedelics compare and which is your favourite?' thread, and was about to point out doing caustic soda instead of LSD was a fucking dumb suggestion.

 

[BryanLuc]

Jo Brand is just not funny, never has been

 

[Proper Tidy]

Brayn

 

[tonysingh]

Late to the thread, but has anyone pointed out that caustic soda is a much better option than acid. Very easy to get your hands on and if the filth catch you just say you've got blocked drains

Bolling water and sugar is even easier.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Bolling water and sugar is even easier.

Doesn't continue to digest your flesh even when you try to wash it off though.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Doesn't continue to digest your flesh even when you try to wash it off though.

It's way more effective than caustic soda.

 

[Pickman's model]

Jo Brand is just not funny, never has been

You're very funny

Funny peculiar that is

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm kind of on the fence with the Boris decapitation thing tbf.

Yeh I'd go impaling too

 

[Saul Goodman]

Yeh I'd go impaling too

Vlad the Impala.

 

[SpineyNorman]

It's way more effective than caustic soda.

I've never had any involvement in a sugar based disfigurement so cannot compare and will have to defer to your greater experience.

I know caustic, in a high enough concentration, seems to get angrier when you put water on it, scar on my leg to prove it

 

[Pickman's model]

I've never had any involvement in a sugar based disfigurement so cannot compare and will have to defer to your greater experience.

I know caustic, in a high enough concentration, seems to get angrier when you put water on it, scar on my leg to prove it

Why either / or and not both?

 

[Saul Goodman]

I've never had any involvement in a sugar based disfigurement so cannot compare and will have to defer to your greater experience.

I know caustic, in a high enough concentration, seems to get angrier when you put water on it, scar on my leg to prove it

I know a very disfigured lad who owed money to some people who knew about the sugar/water thing.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Why either / or and not both?

Good point well made.

 

[tonysingh]

I've seen the sugar n boiling water thing used on a bloke in prison. It's...brutal.

 

[existentialist]

Jo Brand is just not funny, never has been

To you.

It's all a matter of opinion. I think she's quite funny, if only because she makes jokes about stuff outside the usual canon of mainstream humour.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I know a very disfigured lad who owed money to some people who knew about the sugar/water thing.

Liked in sympathy, not because I take pleasure in your friends pain

 

[belboid]

I've never had any involvement in a sugar based disfigurement so cannot compare and will have to defer to your greater experience.

I know caustic, in a high enough concentration, seems to get angrier when you put water on it, scar on my leg to prove it

You better carry out a series of trials then. Throw each, in varying concentrations, at, say, Farage, Johnson, Gove, and Raab, and report back to us.