NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,410422,00.html

I mean, damn, people need to lighten up a bit.

I fail to see what this has to do with political correctness.

As is often the case, Stewart Lee has a damn good take on the issue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE).

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/JakeBlues.jpg

"How much for the little girl? How much for the women?"
"What?"
"Your women. I want to buy your women. The little girl, your daughters... sell them to me. Sell me your children."

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/BluesBrothers.gif

bad joke that was easily misconstrued as an insult.

don't think it was worth jail time tho.

alot of people don't realize that jokes not only have to be delivered with skill and style, but also recieved the same. had he stared with some humourous commentary of the subject of buying women with livestock then (after seeing how they reacted to that) moved on to his joke about buying the girls...

Define "Political Correctness", and explain its relevance here please.

Define "Political Correctness", and explain its relevance here please.

.... women aren't property that can be bought and sold like animals.

it's not an issue of Political Correctness... it's a message for him to find new jokes.
Hensley said. "I meant it as a joke. I've said it a million times. Most people get a kick out of it."

They were probably just tired of hearing the same old thing every day...

bad joke that was easily misconstrued as an insult.

don't think it was worth jail time tho.

alot of people don't realize that jokes not only have to be delivered with skill and style, but also recieved the same. had he stared with some humourous commentary of the subject of buying women with livestock then (after seeing how they reacted to that) moved on to his joke about buying the girls...
Uhm... no.

From the article: "'I offered to trade her a fattening hog for those girls,' Hensley said. 'I meant it as a joke. I've said it a million times. Most people get a kick out of it.'"

From Blues Brothers: What I posted...

Once again, Fox News takes the words "Political Correctness", applies it to a story that it really has nothing to do with, and then pretends like its at the root of all societies ills.

Uhm... no.

From the article: "'I offered to trade her a fattening hog for those girls,' Hensley said. 'I meant it as a joke. I've said it a million times. Most people get a kick out of it.'"

From Blues Brothers: What I posted...

err... trade is bartering. a very loose term for buying. he offered to trade a fattening hog for the girls. he was bartering thus offering to trade ownership of posessions. buy.

i don't think it is a political correctness issue.
he however should not have been arrested. when the joke went over poorly he should have stated it was a joke apologized and the women and him should have never spoke again. and that should have been that. filing a police complaint was stupid. more over the police arresting him after affirming it was a joke was also dumb.

Once again, Fox News takes the words "Political Correctness", applies it to a story that it really has nothing to do with, and then pretends like its at the root of all societies ills.

please show me in the article where Fox News attached the words "Political Correctness" to the joke.

make sure it's FOX NEWS that put it there and that it's not a quote from someone else.

err... trade is bartering. a very loose term for buying. he offered to trade a fattening hog for the girls. he was bartering thus offering to trade ownership of posessions. buy.
But he only made one joke about trading. He never "moved on" like you said after his first joke backfired.

Nothing about buying the girls. That is only what Jake Blues said...

But he only made one joke about trading. He never "moved on" like you said after his first joke backfired.

Nothing about buying the girls. That is only what Jake Blues said...
no, I said he SHOULD'VE. that way his comment about buying the girls would then be recieved as a joke/not serious comment.

alot of people don't realize that jokes not only have to be delivered with skill and style, but also recieved the same. had he started with some humourous commentary of the subject of buying women with livestock then (after seeing how they reacted to that) moved on to his joke about buying the girls...
HAD HE STARTED with some humourous commentary of the subject of buying [Trading/Bartering] women with livestock then (after seeing how they reacted to that [I.e. they laughed]) moved on to his joke about buying [again trading/bartering] the girls...

this had nothing to do with your quote (if it did, I would've quoted it. you know that's my habit.) but the fact that it sounded like (according to the article) that he went straight to the offering a fattening hog for the girls.

.... women aren't property that can be bought and sold like animals.

And it's political correctness to oppose that idea?

And it's political correctness to oppose that idea?
It is politically incorrect to imply that women are property.

Anyway I hate people who tell bad jokes and then say 'lighten up' when you don't laugh. Rot in prison 'WAHAHHAHHA'!

It is politically incorrect to imply that women are property.

Is it? I thought it was just, you know, wrong. Both incorrect and morally questionable.

So again, I'm not sure I understand what "political correctness" has got to do with anything.

Anyway I hate people who tell bad jokes and then say 'lighten up' when you don't laugh. Rot in prison 'WAHAHHAHHA'!

Just say:

You're gonna rot in prison. Lighten up!

:p

Anyway I hate people who tell bad jokes and then say 'lighten up' when you don't laugh. Rot in prison 'WAHAHHAHHA'!

1) I agree. humor is relative. if people don't laugh, they either didn't find it funny, or the teller removed the humor. :D
2) it was three days. He'll be ripe at the most. :p

Is it? I thought it was just, you know, wrong. Both incorrect and morally questionable.

So again, I'm not sure I understand what "political correctness" has got to do with anything.

simple, they saw "FOX NEWS" and the words "Political Correctness" that someone the article quoted and added them together.

Anyway I hate people who tell bad jokes and then say 'lighten up' when you don't laugh.

Join the club, we got jackets.

Join the club, we got jackets.

"Members Only"? :tongue:

Fidel dies and goes to Heaven :

Fidel dies and goes to heaven. When he gets there, St. Peter tells him
that he is not on the list and that no way in hell no how, does he belong in
heaven. Fidel must go to hell. So Fidel goes to hell where Satan gives him
a hearty welcome and tells him to make himself at home.
Then Fidel notices that he left his luggage in heaven and tells Satan, who
says, "No hay problema, I'll send a couple of little devils to get your
stuff."
When the little devils get to heaven they find the gates are locked -
St.Peter is having lunch - and they start debating what to do. Finally,
one comes up with the idea that they should go over the wall and get the
luggage.
As they are climbing the wall, two little angels see them, and one angel
says to the other, "My Godness! Fidel has been in hell no more than
ten minutes and we're already getting refugees!"

"Members Only"? :tongue:

Please. Those went out with mullets and including guitar solos in everything.

Please. Those went out with mullets and including guitar solos in everything.

Appalachia we're talkin' 'bout here, remember? 'Nuff said. :D

Obviously, he is suffering from TSTL. Too Stupid to Live

Making yourself sound like a pedophile is political suicide. Why someone would put himself in that position is beyond me.

That wasn't political correctness, it was just one stupid woman who had no sense of humour.

Anyway I hate people who tell bad jokes and then say 'lighten up' when you don't laugh. Rot in prison 'WAHAHHAHHA'!

There's a difference between not laughing and getting an arrest warrant.

simple, they saw "FOX NEWS" and the words "Political Correctness" that someone the article quoted and added them together.

I was hoping for something more substantial, but you are correct :tongue:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,410422,00.html

I mean, damn, people need to lighten up a bit.
Many "old country jokes" deserve to die off. I have heard enough "dead n-----" jokes from good old country boys, and I'm pretty sure most of those have been around for generations too.

I hate "political correctness"...and all forms of censorship in general...

fuckers...and thats all im gonna say on the subject...

I hate "political correctness"...and all forms of censorship in general...

fuckers...and thats all im gonna say on the subject...

But, but ....

I'd love to see your definitions of "political correctness" and "censorship."

The first is an amorphous boogeyman.

The second doesn't include criticizing speech that one disagrees with. That isn't censorship -- it is the opposite.

This isn't political correctness. This is one person taking offense with a joke made by another person.

Offering to buy someone's children in jest (and, apparently, compliment) isn't the edgiest joke out there, but it's on the cusp of "Use Only Near Acquaintances."

I hate "political correctness"...and all forms of censorship in general...

fuckers...and thats all im gonna say on the subject...

For crying out loud! Define "political correctness" before even considering making such a post! Please!!

I think it's safe to say that the existence of people who lack a sense of proportionate response predates the notion of "political correctness". The huffy are like the poor: they'll always be with us.

But, but ....

I'd love to see your definitions of "political correctness" and "censorship."

The first is an amorphous boogeyman.

The second doesn't include criticizing speech that one disagrees with. That isn't censorship -- it is the opposite.

For crying out loud! Define "political correctness" before even considering making such a post! Please!!

but... but...

er... Uhmmm...


STOP CENSORING ME!!! :mad: ;) :p

For crying out loud! Define "political correctness" before even considering making such a post! Please!!

I dont care what your definition or anyone else's is...

Say what you fuckin want and no one should be able to stop you...

Man, i said i wasnt going to say anything else on the subject...i should know better than that, lol...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,410422,00.html

I mean, damn, people need to lighten up a bit.

The prosecutor who signed off on that should be fired. How can you be an elected officer and not familiar with the culture of your constituents to this degree? It is shocking.

I dont care what your definition or anyone else's is...

Say what you fuckin want and no one should be able to stop you...

Man, i said i wasnt going to say anything else on the subject...i should know better than that, lol...
OK, so call the Better Business Bureau to file a complaint that the mother(censored) who sold you a ten year old Russian girl online refused to refund you when you found out her hymen wasn't intact. Do not be surprised if the FBI pays you a courtesy call.

You have every right to say whatever you like, but saying some things will get you in trouble. And then, of course, there's the classic case of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (now, with fire safety drills commonplace, it is less likely to cause an injurious stampede, but you'd still be responsible for causing injury and inconvenience on a gross scale) or calling in a fake bomb threat. Do not be surprised that false confessions of crime result in inconvenience.

Some crimes are defined by communication, such as price-fixing and other conspiratorial activities.

I'm very disappointed I didn't get home sooner so I could beat German Nightmare to the Blues Brothers quote. :(

but... but...

er... Uhmmm...


STOP CENSORING ME!!! :mad: ;) :p
*Oppresses instead*

I dont care what your definition or anyone else's is...

Say what you fuckin want and no one should be able to stop you...

Man, i said i wasnt going to say anything else on the subject...i should know better than that, lol...
I don't care what my definition is either - I want yours. I want you to spell it out. I want you to clarify what you mean, because, frankly, your post is meaningless and pointless without a definition.

*Oppresses instead*
ohhh... much better.

Appalachian scholar Loyal Jones said the jest Hensley made has been around for generations and actually is intended as a compliment.

"I've heard many variations of that," said Jones, retired director of Berea College's Appalachian Center. "You might hear 'That's a good looking boy; I'd trade you a pocket knife for him' ... Political correctness has ruined country humor."
Was the joke in bad taste? Yes. But all this trouble? No. The guy shoulda apologized, but they went too far with this.

political correctness: the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
Using this definition, what the guy said was most certainly politically incorrect. Lumping women, which are in a group of "people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against," with farm animals could be "perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult" them.

But I don't think the woman was angry for the guy being politically incorrect; she was angry because she thought he was coming on to her young daughters. There's a difference between being insensitive and being plain old creepy.

no, I said he SHOULD'VE. that way his comment about buying the girls would then be recieved as a joke/not serious comment.


HAD HE STARTED with some humourous commentary of the subject of buying [Trading/Bartering] women with livestock then (after seeing how they reacted to that [I.e. they laughed]) moved on to his joke about buying [again trading/bartering] the girls...

this had nothing to do with your quote (if it did, I would've quoted it. you know that's my habit.) but the fact that it sounded like (according to the article) that he went straight to the offering a fattening hog for the girls.
Oh jeez, nevermind. I totally misread that subjunctive. :$

Oh jeez, nevermind. I totally misread that subjunctive. :$

no worries GN, I do that alot myself. :)

I'm very disappointed I didn't get home sooner so I could beat German Nightmare to the Blues Brothers quote. :(
;) I appreciate the thought, though! I wouldn't have expected any less from you. :hail:

If I had been one of those kids, I would have been scared shitless that this strange guy wanted to abduct me and possibly cook me for supper. I'm not from the south and that might be a well-known kind of joke over there, but if a stranger said that to me I'd grab the kids and get out.

If I had been one of those kids, I would have been scared shitless that this strange guy wanted to abduct me and possibly cook me for supper. I'm not from the south and that might be a well-known kind of joke over there, but if a stranger said that to me I'd grab the kids and get out.

seriously. Am I the only one who wondered how anyone in their right mind could have POSSIBLY thought this was a good idea?

seriously. Am I the only one who wondered how anyone in their right mind could have POSSIBLY thought this was a good idea?

It's a pretty phenomenally bad idea for the average person on the street; that a politician thought it was in good taste just boggles the mind.

I'm trying to imagine a similar situation, and it's a bit like watching a friend of yours pull out a chunk of cash to purchase something and saying, "Dude, are you rich? Give me some of that money." Tone and familiarity will likely tell your friend this is a (somewhat wistful) joke, but try being a big guy saying it to a woman with young children with her, especially if you aren't surrounded by people. Not as funny, I bet.

It's a pretty phenomenally bad idea for the average person on the street; that a politician thought it was in good taste just boggles the mind.

I'm trying to imagine a similar situation, and it's a bit like watching a friend of yours pull out a chunk of cash to purchase something and saying, "Dude, are you rich? Give me some of that money." Tone and familiarity will likely tell your friend this is a (somewhat wistful) joke, but try being a big guy saying it to a woman with young children with her, especially if you aren't surrounded by people. Not as funny, I bet.

The difference is one is rude and inappropriate.

The other is joking to buy someone's 11 year old daughter. I can't imagine any tone, or relationship, or familiarity where that would be appropriate.

It's a pretty phenomenally bad idea for the average person on the street; that a politician thought it was in good taste just boggles the mind.
A bit like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4)...

How can someone running for public office be that ignorant?

The other is joking to buy someone's 11 year old daughter. I can't imagine any tone, or relationship, or familiarity where that would be appropriate.

A joke is often inappropriate. If it is told amongst friends, an inappropriate joke can be acceptable, if there's a level of familiarity there to understand that it is merely meant in jest. If the woman was a close family friend, where it would be recognized that there was not a serious proposal to purchase a daughter, then it could be laughed off as a joke. The mistake here was telling it to a complete stranger.

However, I think there's a more important issue at hand here. Am I the only one who feels the joke just isn't funny at all, even if it had been told amongst friends? Maybe it's a cultural thing I'm not aware of, but it's not really funny. I don't get it.

However, I think there's a more important issue at hand here. Am I the only one who feels the joke just isn't funny at all, even if it had been told amongst friends? Maybe it's a cultural thing I'm not aware of, but it's not really funny. I don't get it.

This kinda goes along with my point. I don't understand why ANYONE would EVER feel compelled to say this, even in jest.

Maybe two Bostonians like us just don't get the southern humor, eh?

This kinda goes along with my point. I don't understand why ANYONE would EVER feel compelled to say this, even in jest.

Maybe two Bostonians like us just don't get the southern humor, eh?

Guess so. I wonder if we have any regional humor that outsiders wouldn't get.

We all have off-color jokes that we tell in the company of friends. Some probably aren't funny except for how offensive they are. The difference between us, and this gentleman, is that we also have the common sense not to go blurting said off-color jokes to random strangers in the grocery store.

This kinda goes along with my point. I don't understand why ANYONE would EVER feel compelled to say this, even in jest.

Maybe two Bostonians like us just don't get the southern humor, eh?

humor is relative.

Some find dead baby jokes funny, others wonder how anyone can laugh at the thought of dead babies.

same with rape, some find rape as a viable source of humor while others are disgusted with it.

the fact that the article says MOST of the people this idiot told the same joke to found it funny implies that there were several people who didn't find it funny.

The difference is one is rude and inappropriate.

The other is joking to buy someone's 11 year old daughter. I can't imagine any tone, or relationship, or familiarity where that would be appropriate.

Well, in my example, a stranger might think you were attempting to rob them. I know, it was weak, but my mind = still boggled.

A bit like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4)...

How can someone running for public office be that ignorant?

Seriously, that song was played at my prom, it's so old. :P

Well, in my example, a stranger might think you were attempting to rob them. I know, it was weak, but my mind = still boggled.


I'll boggle your...erm...sorry

Seriously, that song was played at my prom, it's so old. :P

Yeah, that was a whole like...what...7 years ago?

I fail to see what this has to do with political correctness.

As is often the case, Stewart Lee has a damn good take on the issue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE).

I followed your link, and you and Stewart Lee are WRONG about PCness.

PCness is a BAD thing. It is simply discrimination against white middle class males. It is institutionalized enslavement and disenfranchisement of white middle class males.

White middle class males ARE more oppressed, thanks to PCness, than any of the other groups.

"What's wrong with bashing white males?", you or anybody else reading this post might be saying. Answer: the same thing that's wrong with bashing any other group of people, that's what's wrong!

Stewart Lee, judging from your link above, is a politically correct bigot.

And NO, political correctness and bigotry are NOT mutually exclusive.

And NO, just because it is politically correct does NOT make it OK or any more morally acceptable than any politically INcorrect form of bigotry.

Yeah, that was a whole like...what...7 years ago?

Seven years, but a whole lifetime of immaturity.

White middle class males ARE more oppressed, thanks to PCness, than any of the other groups.

Elaborate on what oppression white, middle-class males face in today's society.

Seven years, but a whole lifetime of immaturity.

you know what they say. Prom lasts a night. The emotional scars last forever.

Elaborate on what oppression white, middle-class males face in today's society.

we can't own slaves and smack them uppity bitches around anymore.

you know what they say. Prom lasts a night. The emotional scars last forever.

I can't argue with this.

(Have I told you my prom story? It's awful, but also kinda funny if you're, y'know, not me. :tongue: )

I can't argue with this.

(Have I told you my prom story? It's awful, but also kinda funny if you're, y'know, not me. :tongue: )

I want to hear! Awkward prom stories are awesome.

I followed your link, and you and Stewart Lee are WRONG about PCness.

PCness is a BAD thing. It is simply discrimination against white middle class males. It is institutionalized enslavement and disenfranchisement of white middle class males.

White middle class males ARE more oppressed, thanks to PCness, than any of the other groups.

"What's wrong with bashing white males?", you or anybody else reading this post might be saying. Answer: the same thing that's wrong with bashing any other group of people, that's what's wrong!

Stewart Lee, judging from your link above, is a politically correct bigot.

And NO, political correctness and bigotry are NOT mutually exclusive.

And NO, just because it is politically correct does NOT make it OK or any more morally acceptable than any politically INcorrect form of bigotry.

White middle class males have huge amounts of power and money in our society. From that we can tell that they aren't "opressed". If you walk around a very poor black area, yelling "I've got some opression to sell, comes with all the hallmarks of being trodden on by the system - a nice house, job and car." I'm sure that you won't find many people round there yelling that they won't be sold into that kind of enslavement and disenfranchisement and if you're quite done they're busy getting robbed and told by society they're at fault for all their ills.

Whilst the white middle class guy - he's not to blame. It's political fucking correctness.

I want to hear! Awkward prom stories are awesome.
A new thread I sense. Start it you must.

Elaborate on what oppression white, middle-class males face in today's society.

More scruitiny on what they say and do.

you have two speakers. one white, middle-class the other a minority of your choice.

Both use the N-word in the same context and same tone. who will be seen as Racists by Joe Average?

Take American Idol. three white contestants are at the bottom of the list, threatened to be removed from the competition. any outcry? no.
but three out of four minorites end up on the bottom three and this is the results (http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/elton-john-calls-american-idol-voting-incredibly-racist-2526.php).

look at this Presidential election. what's the most mentioned thing announced? that this could be America's first black President. when you hear joe/jane average speak, do they talk about Obama's plans? no, they talk about being part of a historic Presidental first.

Even on this forum. A debate about Illegal Aliens and what is the second thing to pop up? That somehow it's only 'Brown skinned" people that are guilty of being in a country illegally.

Does this mean that White middle class males are over scrutinized? NO IT DOES NOT. it's about time we, as individuals, learn to censor ourselves, think before we talk. consider before we act. it's a hard lession. but one that needs to be learned.

but this also goes to those so ready to call "Racists" on their brothers and sisters. things need to be beyond color for both sides. sure there are small minded idiots looking at the world though colored glasses, but there are those who don't. Sometimes a joke is just a joke. a bad performance is just a bad performance. and a mistake is just a mistake.

I believe the best way to target political correctness is by making a joke that is completely politically incorrect. So here is a joke I created a few days ago

I was watching an add on TV. It said eat Coon. So that night i tried some and ended up in jail.
WHY didnt they tell me they meant cheese??


(Coon is the major cheese company in Australia).

I believe the best way to target political correctness is by making a joke that is completely politically incorrect. So here is a joke I created a few days ago

I was watching an add on TV. It said eat Coon. So that night i tried some and ended up in jail.
WHY didnt they tell me they meant cheese??


(Coon is the major cheese company in Australia).

nice one. :D

PCness is a BAD thing. It is simply discrimination against white middle class males. It is institutionalized enslavement and disenfranchisement of white middle class males.
Yeah, because being dressed down for calling black people ******s, coons and jungle-bunnies is akin to enslavement...

Why, you can't even have a good lynching anymore, and these PC people, for some reason, seem to find wearing a white hood and burning a cross distasteful. What do these people want? Treating people like decent human beings!

The horror!



Seriously, what do you think 'Political Correctness' is? Are you really objecting to a change in attitudes that means the vast majority of the populace find racial remarks distasteful? Do you really want to return to a time when no-one batted an eyelid at someone calling their black neighbour a ******? Or a return to (non tongue-in-cheek) blackface minstrels on TV?

White middle class males ARE more oppressed, thanks to PCness, than any of the other groups.
Name one area where white middle-class males are oppressed.

One.

"What's wrong with bashing white males?", you or anybody else reading this post might be saying. Answer: the same thing that's wrong with bashing any other group of people, that's what's wrong!
You seem to be very confused. Let me help you out:

Calling for an end to distasteful racist remarks is not the same as calling for "bashing white males". Your own personal daemons aside, no-one is calling for white males to be "bashed".

Stewart Lee, judging from your link above, is a politically correct bigot.
Explain, exactly, how it is bigoted to wish an end to the use of racially offensive language, and a change towards a more liberated society?

To have any meaningful input on a debate, the participants must have a firm grasp on what they are discussing. I fear, sir, you have little grasp of the subject at hand.

It is politically incorrect to imply that women are property.

The Founding Fathers would probably agree with you in a moral sense, but it certainly didn't stop Thomas Jefferson, hero of quite a few teenage libertarians on this forum, to be a proud slave owner himself. Good old Jefferson actually had women as property. Charming, isn't it?

Well values change in time. I know the rape laws in Australia were first written by a 40 year old with a 14 year old wife.

It wasnt wrong at the time.

It wasnt wrong at the time.
It wasn't socially wrong, but it was (arguably) morally wrong.

It wasn't socially wrong, but it was (arguably) morally wrong.

Morals change. Eye for an Eye was morally right at one point.

Slaves were morally right a loong time ago.

Morals change. Eye for an Eye was morally right at one point.

Slaves were morally right a loong time ago.
My moral realist friends would disagree.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,410422,00.html

I mean, damn, people need to lighten up a bit.

You know... if that's a "country joke", it's about time someone or something ruined them for good. I'm surprised it took this long, even.

Morals change. Eye for an Eye was morally right at one point.

Slaves were morally right a loong time ago.

I'd disagree.. morals don't really change much, they just expand.
Slaves were morally right as long as a concept of moral treatment could exclude them (they're blacks and therefore don't deserve moral consideration, they're not Christian/Jew/Muslim/etc and therefore don't deserve moral consideration, etc). We don't change our morals so much as widen the group they apply to, in steps. Include balcks, include women, include other religions, etc. These days, some people will go so far as to include animals.

Won't be very long before people will look back onto those terrible, immoral people in the 21st century, treating animals like inamimate items...

I followed your link, and you and Stewart Lee are WRONG about PCness.

PCness is a BAD thing. It is simply discrimination against white middle class males. It is institutionalized enslavement and disenfranchisement of white middle class males.

White middle class males ARE more oppressed, thanks to PCness, than any of the other groups.

"What's wrong with bashing white males?", you or anybody else reading this post might be saying. Answer: the same thing that's wrong with bashing any other group of people, that's what's wrong!

Stewart Lee, judging from your link above, is a politically correct bigot.

And NO, political correctness and bigotry are NOT mutually exclusive.

And NO, just because it is politically correct does NOT make it OK or any more morally acceptable than any politically INcorrect form of bigotry.

*Points to*

For crying out loud! Define "political correctness" before even considering making such a post! Please!!

humor is relative.
the fact that the article says MOST of the people this idiot told the same joke to found it funny implies that there were several people who didn't find it funny.
Of course we only have the politician and his attorney's word that everyone else found his feeble joke funny. But then, they would say that.

I'm reminded of a line in a Robertson Davies novel; "He was that most pathetic of all men: The man with One Joke."

I fail to see how this could be construed as anything other than a poor taste comment. Imagine going up to a total stranger and telling them their daughters are equivalent to a fat pig in your eyes. And then be surprised if they're offended by that? Is he really that moronic?

Elaborate on what oppression white, middle-class males face in today's society.
It's all their fault, didn't you know?

I'd disagree.. morals don't really change much, they just expand.


Or contract. Morals are cyclical in nature, expanding or contracting depending on things like education, awareness, economic well being and most importantly, how balanced the society is with itself and its environment.

PCness is a BAD thing. It is simply discrimination against white middle class males. It is institutionalized enslavement and disenfranchisement of white middle class males.
White middle class males ARE more oppressed, thanks to PCness, than any of the other groups.
43 White males who agree with you that they are the most oppressed and disenfranchised minority group in America:
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p316/francislholland/43ExclusivelyWhiteMalePresidents.jpg
A few Stephen Colbert quotes:
"Today’s political landscape is now dominated by Black Men and White Women, while one group has been completely marginalized: the White Male. Sure, you can still find the occasional example of white men in power. A token 389 in Congress. A conciliatory seven or so on the Supreme Court. One in the White House."
"isn’t the greatest victimization of all being robbed of your ability to be the victim?"

Stephen Colbert’s Guide to White Male Oppression (http://www.esquire.com/features/stephen-colbert-0808)

Appalachia we're talkin' 'bout here, remember? 'Nuff said. :D

Of course.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,410422,00.html

I mean, damn, people need to lighten up a bit.
Must have been a pretty bad joke to net him three nights in jail.

Must have been a pretty bad joke to net him three nights in jail.

It was basically "hey I'll buy your daughters for a pig".

I'm not kidding.

The difference is one is rude and inappropriate.

The other is joking to buy someone's 11 year old daughter. I can't imagine any tone, or relationship, or familiarity where that would be appropriate.

Naaa I disagree. It is as somebody has already said, a strange sorta way to compliment somebody on their kids.

Myself I would have laughed and said something along the lines, of 'only one hog, naaaa mate she's worth much more than that'

Really whats the differance betwwn that and seeing a young family with a cute babe in arms in the street and remarking 'ahhh what a beutiful little baby'

As far as I can see that was exactly the intent.

Yep I agree with the OP, some people should just cheer up.

Really whats the differance betwwn that and seeing a young family with a cute babe in arms in the street and remarking 'ahhh what a beutiful little baby'


Without reading anything into tone, one is a comment, the other is an offer to engage in illicit human trafficking.

Without reading anything into tone, one is a comment, the other is an offer to engage in illicit human trafficking.


Yeah because we all know that the best way to do such a thing is to speak directly to the parents.:D And if one reads a jovial manor into the tone?

Yeah because we all know that the best way to do such a thing is to speak directly to the parents.:D That's how it gets done in the places where it's a major problem.

That's how it's always been done everywhere.

Yeah because we all know that the best way to do such a thing is to speak directly to the parents.:D And if one reads a jovial manor into the tone?

Seeing as how child trade is still an active business in many corners of the world, where even the parents take part in, it's one of the things you can't afford not to take seriously.

That's how it gets done in the places where it's a major problem.

Yes I agree, I have heard that the USA has a massive problem with this sort of thing.:D

Really whats the difference between that and seeing a young family with a cute babe in arms in the street and remarking 'ahhh what a beautiful little baby'
ummm...at a guess, one is handing out an innocent compliment to a young family and the other is equating an 11yr girl to a pig and telling the mother you want her daughter. sooo...yeah, slight difference.

My moral realist friends would disagree.
its their right to.
I'd disagree.. morals don't really change much, they just expand.
Slaves were morally right as long as a concept of moral treatment could exclude them (they're blacks and therefore don't deserve moral consideration, they're not Christian/Jew/Muslim/etc and therefore don't deserve moral consideration, etc). We don't change our morals so much as widen the group they apply to, in steps. Include balcks, include women, include other religions, etc. These days, some people will go so far as to include animals.

Won't be very long before people will look back onto those terrible, immoral people in the 21st century, treating animals like inamimate items...

er... but it's still change.

Of course we only have the politician and his attorney's word that everyone else found his feeble joke funny. But then, they would say that.

I'm reminded of a line in a Robertson Davies novel; "He was that most pathetic of all men: The man with One Joke."

I fail to see how this could be construed as anything other than a poor taste comment. Imagine going up to a total stranger and telling them their daughters are equivalent to a fat pig in your eyes. And then be surprised if they're offended by that? Is he really that moronic?being "in poor taste" is no excuse. He was held responsible for his comments. I just think jailtime was excessive for the crime of telling a very bad joke.

Yes I agree, I have heard that the USA has a massive problem with this sort of thing.:D

Especially with kidnappings.

err... trade is bartering. a very loose term for buying. he offered to trade a fattening hog for the girls. he was bartering thus offering to trade ownership of posessions. buy.

Everyone needs to lighten up;
'Appalachian scholar Loyal Jones said the jest Hensley made has been around for generations and actually is intended as a compliment.

"I've heard many variations of that," said Jones, retired director of Berea College's Appalachian Center. "You might hear 'That's a good looking boy; I'd trade you a pocket knife for him' ... Political correctness has ruined country humor."'

People from outside the region might not understand the local humor, but it is local humor. I agree that "political correctness" has ruined a lot more than country humor.

ummm...at a guess, one is handing out an innocent compliment to a young family and the other is equating an 11yr girl to a pig and telling the mother you want her daughter. sooo...yeah, slight difference.

No there was no eqauting her to a pig. Can you really not see the inherent compliment in the there?

i don't think it is a political correctness issue.
he however should not have been arrested. when the joke went over poorly he should have stated it was a joke apologized and the women and him should have never spoke again. and that should have been that. filing a police complaint was stupid. more over the police arresting him after affirming it was a joke was also dumb.

Nope, you see, its ok if they don't give him a chance to explain it. They (from what I could glean from the article) did not give him a chance to explain, which makes sense, if someone offered to trade livestock for my family I would take that as a serious offer that could only have sexual meaning.

Wait, no I wouldn't, I would realize that something about this proposal seems innately unserious, especially in our non-agrarian society. It's not a particularly funny joke, but I've heard (and made) plenty of more stupid jokes, but it is such a ridiculous premise to take seriously, and whats more is that the sexuality she inferred was entirely on her end, someone trading livestock likely needs help on the farm first, and even said he didn't add the clause: 'so I can molest them' at the end, or anything to suggest sexuality, and thats what is the worst part for me (nope, I take that back, that she took it seriously I think is pretty much the worst).

No there was no eqauting her to a pig. Can you really not see the inherent compliment in the there?

It's an odd compliment, and the fact that it is 'old as the hills' I think is what makes it so odd. The girls were compared to a hog only in respect to their inherrent value, and fattened hogs are pretty valuable. I get the compliment, like I said, it's a little odd, but the man didn't say "You're daughters look like hogs, why don't you let me touch them!"

Again, the only comparison was on value, in which case the two girls were ot equated, if he was willing to trade, it implies no equity, the girls were more valuable than the fattened hog.

Everyone needs to lighten up;
'Appalachian scholar Loyal Jones said the jest Hensley made has been around for generations and actually is intended as a compliment.

"I've heard many variations of that," said Jones, retired director of Berea College's Appalachian Center. "You might hear 'That's a good looking boy; I'd trade you a pocket knife for him' ... Political correctness has ruined country humor."'

People from outside the region might not understand the local humor, but it is local humor. I agree that "political correctness" has ruined a lot more than country humor.

If that's a typical example of country humor, then it needed ruining.

If that's a typical example of country humor, then it needed ruining.

I'd say it was ruined to begin with.

er... but it's still change.



More like a change of audience, not really a new program ;)

More like a change of audience, not really a new program ;)

and what dictates morals if not the audience?

Everyone needs to lighten up;
'Appalachian scholar Loyal Jones said the jest Hensley made has been around for generations and actually is intended as a compliment.

"I've heard many variations of that," said Jones, retired director of Berea College's Appalachian Center. "You might hear 'That's a good looking boy; I'd trade you a pocket knife for him' ... Political correctness has ruined country humor."'

People from outside the region might not understand the local humor, but it is local humor. I agree that "political correctness" has ruined a lot more than country humor.

I never denied what he intended his joke to be. but how it's recieved by the listener/audience is also important as well.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0298pctalk.htm
I can never tell if this is sarcastic or not...

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0298pctalk.htm
I can never tell if this is sarcastic or not...

Q: I am a white male. Can I still be PC?

Sure. You just have to feel very guilty.

Try looking just a little harder.

and what dictates morals if not the audience?

Ah, no, that's not what I meant.
It's not who tells us what our morals are (or ought to be), it's who we feel we should extend the benefit of our moral behaviour to...

That wasn't political correctness, it was just one stupid woman who had no sense of humour.

One and the same at the root, though, aren't they? :wink:

One and the same at the root, though, aren't they? :wink:

Not even remotely.

Not even remotely.

Sez you. I might disagree.

Sez you. I might disagree.
I've asked a variation of this many times in this thread, and elsewhere, still no answer:

Why is a public perception that finds calling a black person a ******, coon or jungle-bunnie completely unacceptable the same as having no sense of humour?

Or, why is finding blackface minstrels distasteful, or thinking that treating people who have a different skin colour to yourself as lesser beings is wrong behaviour, equatable to having no humour?

One and the same at the root, though, aren't they? :wink:

Not even remotely.

Sez you. I might disagree.

I've asked a variation of this many times in this thread, and elsewhere, still no answer:

Why is a public perception that finds calling a black person a ******, coon or jungle-bunnie completely unacceptable the same as having no sense of humour?

Or, why is finding blackface minstrels distasteful, or thinking that treating people who have a different skin colour to yourself as lesser beings is wrong behaviour, equatable to having no humour?

I dunno, maybe. And blackface is still funny.

http://activenest.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/2385789169_78acd537d6.jpg

I fail to see what this has to do with political correctness.

As is often the case, Stewart Lee has a damn good take on the issue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE).I'm not sure I entirely agree with that statement. I acknowledge the great change in social norms that has happened over the last few decades, but that doesn't mean you can't have political correctness going out of control.

I remember this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560250) mentioning this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2261307/Toddlers-who-dislike-spicy-food-racist,-say-report.html).

It was about a government report talking about attempting to eliminate attitudes and behaviours that could later develop into racist sentiments in later life. For instance, reprimanding children for not being willing to try new foods. But then it went on to say that such incidents should be reported to local councils.

Other things I remember are: baa baa rainbow sheep, because using the term black would be racist; and an ice-cream ad that contained several spoons and eeny meeny being pulled after being accused of being racist. My entire class at school had to go ask why the ad was racist (we'd only ever learnt eeny, meeny, miney, mo). My point being that it only appeared racist to an older generation that was stuck in a rut, but to a younger generation there appeared no racist overtones at all.

the 'eeny, meeny' one is odd. Sure I know some ppl used to say, 'catch a ****** by the toe' but at my primary school we were taught, 'catch a tiger by the toe'.
Or is that also politically incorrect because they're an endangered species?

Oh, I'd thought the eeny meeny one was more contentious as the original rhyme is racist. But also, if you look at the baa baa black sheep rhyme, where on Earth is the context that might make a child think "Oh, these African chaps are bad bunch. We should set about subjugating them for their own good".

Baa baa black sheep have you any wool,
yes sir, yes sir, three bags full,
one for the master,
one for the dame,
one for the little boy who lives down the lane

Oh, I'd thought the eeny meeny one was more contentious as the original rhyme is racist. But also, if you look at the baa baa black sheep rhyme, where on Earth is the context that might make a child think "Oh, these African chaps are bad bunch. We should set about subjugating them for their own good".
The only things I can think of is that the term 'black sheep' has negative connotations so a child might end up thinking anything black is likewise.
Another thing is maybe the 2nd line, "yes sir, yes sir" sounds too close to the "yassuh yassuh" black slaves would say to their master (which is used in the very next line, albeit in a different context).
The 3 bags full could conceivably, if stretched to the limits of plausibility, refer not to wool but to cotton.
So someone with a lot of time on their hands and a desire to see racism in everything could possibly view this poem as being about black slaves picking cotton for their master.

Of course, given enough time and inclination, one could convolute pretty everything ever written into containing a racist message.
Which misses the point entirely about kids songs and poems: children can't think that laterally, so wouldn't see this poem as being anything but a song about a sheep. But like that's gonna stop the PC brigade.

Its great to see that humor is dying off so painfully. Before long nobody will laugh at a well told joke...

The only things I can think of is that the term 'black sheep' has negative connotations so a child might end up thinking anything black is likewise.
Another thing is maybe the 2nd line, "yes sir, yes sir" sounds too close to the "yassuh yassuh" black slaves would say to their master (which is used in the very next line, albeit in a different context).
The 3 bags full could conceivably, if stretched to the limits of plausibility, refer not to wool but to cotton.
So someone with a lot of time on their hands and a desire to see racism in everything could possibly view this poem as being about black slaves picking cotton for their master.Looking at the origins of nursery rhymes can be so interesting. Like how 'ring a ring a rosies' is referring to bubonic plague. And I remember it being such a happy and joyful song

Ring a ring o' rosies -- the rashes that would often form in circles
A pocketful of posies -- the herbs put into your nightie pockets to try to ward off the illness
"Atishoo, Atishoo" -- the violent sneezing that was another symptom
We all fall down! -- that the plague had in excess of a 60% mortality rate

Teh wiki says 'baa baa black sheep' came about from Edward I's participation in the 9th crusade. Original it was two for the master and none for the little boy, referring to the wool tax imposed to fund the crusade for England's master (the king) leaving none left over for the peasants.

Of course, given enough time and inclination, one could convolute pretty everything ever written into containing a racist message.
Which misses the point entirely about kids songs and poems: children can't think that laterally, so wouldn't see this poem as being anything but a song about a sheep. But like that's gonna stop the PC brigade.Oh indeed. My flatmate was watching a tv show where they investigate haunted places. It's just so much crap. If you want to see or hear something enough then you will. It's easily the same, if not more so, for extracting meaning from text or speech.

Looking at the origins of nursery rhymes can be so interesting. Like how 'ring a ring a rosies' is referring to bubonic plague. And I remember it being such a happy and joyful song
I thought that too, but found out recently that's not true:
http://www.snopes.com/language/literary/rosie.asp

many of the old nursery rhymes had political/satirical undertones cause that was the only way they could get them out into the open without being persecuted for it.

I thought that too, but found out recently that's not true:
http://www.snopes.com/language/literary/rosie.asp

many of the old nursery rhymes had political/satirical undertones cause that was the only way they could get them out into the open without being persecuted for it.I'm not sure I agree with that assessment.

Snopes claims that the song must be fairly new as it was only published in 1881.However, Red Riding hood was only published in the 19th century, but I seem to remember there being evidence to such a tale existing in 14th Century France and Italy despite not being written down at the time. Kate Greenaway is British, but an American author references the rhyme in a book before the Mother Gooses tales are published. This suggests that the rhyme was very widespread in the 19th century and therefore probably fairly old. It also has many variants which for an oral tradition suggests age. Therefore I think there is enough evidence to suggest that just because it was only published in 1881 it could quite well have been around for a lot longer.

It's also claimed that the rhyme doesn't use Middle English, but the version I know does - "Ring a ring o rosies". Besides that, oral traditions aren't static like books are and is therefore entirely possible that the wording has changed from its original format.

They also go on to say that the explanations of the rhyme are inconsistent, well with several variations ones might expect that. But all the explanations do seem to be related to each other. For instance, flowers were used to hide the stench of dead bodies, and with medieval medicine what it was it was presumed that the smell of the flowers would prevent infection as the disease was thought to spread through the air (which was wrong). If flowers were thought to prevent disease then flowers might also be placed on graves to prevent the disease leaving the grave.

In addition it is claimed that it took 600 years for someone to figure out what the rhyme meant. Well if it was only written down in 1881 then maybe it didn't receive enough attention for anyone to care what it originally meant. But if the rhyme only started in the late 1600s in the last outbreak of plague in London then it's only 200 years for someone to find out what it means.

The only two bits where I thought they were right is the several variations that definitely seem to have nothing to do with plague, and the alternative explanation given.

Not sure why I gave so much thought to that.

snip
Well thought and reasoned.
I felt pretty much the same way as you do regards Snopes analysis. Just because it wasn't written down earlier doesn't mean it wasn't around earlier. It could well have been written down, just lost.
The whole poem in itself applies itself so well to the bubonic plague; other explanations just don't quite fit.
These old poems have lots of theories behind them. For example the Jack and Jill rhyme:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_and_Jill_(song)

People always plaguarised tunes and poems back then, so there could well have been an earlier similar rhyme that someone used when making this poem up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_old_Duke_of_York

I'm going to keep with the bubonic plague theory.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that statement. I acknowledge the great change in social norms that has happened over the last few decades, but that doesn't mean you can't have political correctness going out of control.
Certainly. But support of political correctness doesn't equate to support of every single measure that anybody calls 'politically correct. I support feminism, but that doesn't mean I support every single measure that anybody calls 'feminist'.

As Stewart Lee says, some bumbling civil servant occasionally proposing a rather silly measure because they're worried of offending people is a far better situation to civil servants, politicians and the public generally thinking outright racism and an attitude that someone of different skin colour is 'lesser' is acceptable.

The great thing is, as well as highlighting and opposing bigotry, we can also highlight and oppose the occasional overstepping of the mark.



I dunno, maybe. And blackface is still funny.
But why are we laughing at Downey Jr.? Or at Papa Lazarou in The League of Gentlemen? Not, I'd contend, for the same reasons that folks laughed at the Amos 'n' Andy show.

In the past, blackface minstrels were deliberate parodies of black people; pointing fun at black stereotypes. Downey's character in Tropic Thunder is amusing because he's unacceptable. Brandon T. Jackson is in the film to show the revulsion of a real black man towards someone pretending to be black.

We aren't (well, most of us) going along to the cinema to have a good laugh at the ******s, but a good laugh at a fictional character who doesn't realise how inappropriate his actions are.

Sez you. I might disagree.

Not my fault you're using the word wrong.

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment.

Snopes claims that the song must be fairly new as it was only published in 1881.However, Red Riding hood was only published in the 19th century, but I seem to remember there being evidence to such a tale existing in 14th Century France and Italy despite not being written down at the time. Kate Greenaway is British, but an American author references the rhyme in a book before the Mother Gooses tales are published. This suggests that the rhyme was very widespread in the 19th century and therefore probably fairly old. It also has many variants which for an oral tradition suggests age. Therefore I think there is enough evidence to suggest that just because it was only published in 1881 it could quite well have been around for a lot longer.

It's also claimed that the rhyme doesn't use Middle English, but the version I know does - "Ring a ring o rosies". Besides that, oral traditions aren't static like books are and is therefore entirely possible that the wording has changed from its original format.

They also go on to say that the explanations of the rhyme are inconsistent, well with several variations ones might expect that. But all the explanations do seem to be related to each other. For instance, flowers were used to hide the stench of dead bodies, and with medieval medicine what it was it was presumed that the smell of the flowers would prevent infection as the disease was thought to spread through the air (which was wrong). If flowers were thought to prevent disease then flowers might also be placed on graves to prevent the disease leaving the grave.

In addition it is claimed that it took 600 years for someone to figure out what the rhyme meant. Well if it was only written down in 1881 then maybe it didn't receive enough attention for anyone to care what it originally meant. But if the rhyme only started in the late 1600s in the last outbreak of plague in London then it's only 200 years for someone to find out what it means.

The only two bits where I thought they were right is the several variations that definitely seem to have nothing to do with plague, and the alternative explanation given.

Not sure why I gave so much thought to that.

Snopes should have a Snopes entry on Snopes :p

Well thought and reasoned.
I felt pretty much the same way as you do regards Snopes analysis. Just because it wasn't written down earlier doesn't mean it was around earlier. Also, it could well have been written down, just lost.
The whole poem in itself applies itself so well to the bubonic plague; other explanations just don't quite fit.
These old poems have lots of theories behind them. For example the Jack and Jill rhyme:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_and_Jill_(song)

People always plaguarised tunes and poems back then, so there could well have been an earlier similar rhyme that someone used when making this poem up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_old_Duke_of_York

I'm going to keep with the bubonic plague theory.Oooh, compliment! I savour these as I always have the faint impression that everyone on NSG thinks I'm an idiot. But yeah, it just fits so neatly.

Certainly. But support of political correctness doesn't equate to support of every single measure that anybody calls 'politically correct. I support feminism, but that doesn't mean I support every single measure that anybody calls 'feminist'.

As Stewart Lee says, some bumbling civil servant occasionally proposing a rather silly measure because they're worried of offending people is a far better situation to civil servants, politicians and the public generally thinking outright racism and an attitude that someone of different skin colour is 'lesser' is acceptable.

The great thing is, as well as highlighting and opposing bigotry, we can also highlight and oppose the occasional overstepping of the mark.I think I was put off by his opening and closing remarks: "The kind of people who say Political Correctness has gone mad are usually using it as a cover action to attack minorities or people they disagree with" and then "you're the kind of people who say the most oppressed people in England today are the white middle class males". So although he made a valid point, which I think you put better, it also sounded like "anyone who thinks political correctness is getting a bit excessive is a bigot".

Snopes should have a Snopes entry on Snopes :pSo how does one go about posting a question to Snopes?

Well thought and reasoned.
I felt pretty much the same way as you do regards Snopes analysis. Just because it wasn't written down earlier doesn't mean it was around earlier. Also, it could well have been written down, just lost.
The whole poem in itself applies itself so well to the bubonic plague; other explanations just don't quite fit.
These old poems have lots of theories behind them. For example the Jack and Jill rhyme:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_and_Jill_(song)

People always plaguarised tunes and poems back then, so there could well have been an earlier similar rhyme that someone used when making this poem up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_old_Duke_of_York

I'm going to keep with the bubonic plague theory.

It's hard to say when a Nursery rhyme originated and what was meanings behind it.

I think I was put off by his opening and closing remarks: "The kind of people who say Political Correctness has gone mad are usually using it as a cover action to attack minorities or people they disagree with" and then "you're the kind of people who say the most oppressed people in England today are the white middle class males". So although he made a valid point, which I think you put better, it also sounded like "anyone who thinks political correctness is getting a bit excessive is a bigot".
That's perhaps a fair assertion, though I think Lee has a point that many of those who complain about political correctness often sport fairly bigoted opinions.

Not all, but many.

Political correctness also ruined groping your secretary and sexual harassment in the workplace.

Boo! Why should all these spoilsports force us to treat people like people and not like objects in our environment?

So how does one go about posting a question to Snopes?

Haven't got the foggiest.

Political correctness also ruined groping your secretary and sexual harassment in the workplace.

Boo! Why should all these spoilsports force us to treat people like people and not like objects in our environment?

because, those spoilsports are the ones who were NOT groped nor were they sexually harrassed in the workplace. guess they felt if they can't get any of the fun, then no one gets to have fun. :(

But why are we laughing at Downey Jr.? Or at Papa Lazarou in The League of Gentlemen? Not, I'd contend, for the same reasons that folks laughed at the Amos 'n' Andy show.

In the past, blackface minstrels were deliberate parodies of black people; pointing fun at black stereotypes. Downey's character in Tropic Thunder is amusing because he's unacceptable. Brandon T. Jackson is in the film to show the revulsion of a real black man towards someone pretending to be black.
I felt the comedy in his character wasn't that he was a white guy pretending to be black, but at the ludicrous attempts some actors will go to in their desire to be as 'real' as possible. Think of the lengths method actors such as Dustin Hoffman, Bob DeNiro or even Ed Norton go to in order to make themselves into the character they're playing.
Don't get me wrong - I think they're all great actors, but I prefer character acting over method acting.

For eg, compare Norton's 'American History X' character to Ben Kingsley 'Sexy Beast' character or Robert Carlyle's 'Trainspotting' character. All of them are straight-out scary psychos (and great acting by all) but only Norton went and pumped himself up to look physically intimidating. Carlyle and Kingsley just, well, acted. And damn if they didn't come across as total psycho. Especially Kingsley! He was bloody scary. And all he did was shave his head for the part. A scrawny little runt but right from his first scene he was someone you just knew not to fuck with.

I'm just waiting for the day when it's acceptable again to offer my daughter for a fattening hog. Either that or a sizable quantity of good cured tobacco.

Guess so. I wonder if we have any regional humor that outsiders wouldn't get.

We all have off-color jokes that we tell in the company of friends. Some probably aren't funny except for how offensive they are. The difference between us, and this gentleman, is that we also have the common sense not to go blurting said off-color jokes to random strangers in the grocery store.

What's brown and yellow, and sleeps six...?

...A Boston Edison truck :)

For eg, compare Norton's 'American History X' character to Ben Kingsley 'Sexy Beast' character or Robert Carlyle's 'Trainspotting' character. All of them are straight-out scary psychos (and great acting by all) but only Norton went and pumped himself up to look physically intimidating. Carlyle and Kingsley just, well, acted. And damn if they didn't come across as total psycho. Especially Kingsley! He was bloody scary. And all he did was shave his head for the part. A scrawny little runt but right from his first scene he was someone you just knew not to fuck with.

Their roles were really all quite different. Poor heroin addicts aren't generally (in my limited experience) the most robust people, and a guy like Norton's character would absolutely have seen being physically fit and intimidating as an important statement (the perfect healthy, strapping aryan male) and defense. You have to look at the situation, not just the fact that the characters are "psycho" (which I don't even think Norton's character was, but whatever).

Their roles were really all quite different. Poor heroin addicts aren't generally (in my limited experience) the most robust people, and a guy like Norton's character would absolutely have seen being physically fit and intimidating as an important statement (the perfect healthy, strapping aryan male) and defense. You have to look at the situation, not just the fact that the characters are "psycho" (which I don't even think Norton's character was, but whatever).
Begby in 'Trainspotting' wasn't a junkie. He was just a psycho Scots-nut who liked drinking and fighting. In the book he was made out to be pretty solid build, which was part of the reason he was so intimidating. Tt was a bit of a surprise they gave Robery Carlyle the part, and instead of bulking up for it, he just changed the part to suit his own physical (of lack thereof) characteristics and became intimidating through his intensity.
Same with Ben Kingsley's character. Watch the movie and see just how scared shitless they all are of him when they hear he's coming for a visit. Even Ray Winstone, who's a pretty bulky solid guy, is scared. Again, the easiest thing to do would have been to bulk up to look physically intimidating. Instead Kingsley just acted very frightening.
The point is, Ed Norton didn't have to bulk up so much for 'American history X'. There's only one scene afaik that nesitates him working out (in the prison), but that could easily have been done another way.
Difference between British and US cinema/acting I guess. Also difference between US and British audiences. US movie studios feel the need to overdo everything to ensure the audience understands. Having a scrawny guy in an intimidating role might confuse the poor lambs.

Difference between British and US cinema/acting I guess. Also difference between US and British audiences. US movie studios feel the need to overdo everything to ensure the audience understands. Having a scrawny guy in an intimidating role might confuse the poor lambs.

Don't try to be cleverly patronizing, it's so overdone.

I felt the comedy in his character wasn't that he was a white guy pretending to be black, but at the ludicrous attempts some actors will go to in their desire to be as 'real' as possible.
That too.

Point being, the comedy isn't in the black stereotyping.