Mean Scenester wrote:The crux of the "joke" is that sleeping with a black man is akin to sleeping with an animal and that anyone woman who would do so must be a drunken whore.
No that was not the crux of the joke, the crux was that mamma OBama sleeps with dogs.
Mean Scenester wrote: If you can't see how that's incredibly offensive in the ways being discussed here then you're the one who's inflexible.
How many times do I have to repeat that I agree that the joke is offensive? I didn't approve of the joke.
I was trying to have a civil discussion about an upsetting topic. I was trying to explore the **specifics** of what is acceptable, where are the lines. I agreed that there was a racist angle to the joke. I disagree that is the only way people are reading it, actually that's a fact, not an opinion. Nobody dares venture an explanation of how the joke is mysogenistic.
The only standard I hear is: "IF something really really upsets me, it is really really evil and intolerable." I'm not suggesting that bigotry is involved here, but emotion-based judgement is exactly where intolerance comes from, it should be challenged.
I explained specifically what my own standards are.
Mean girls Snoqueen & Rabble have announced that I am no longer welcome at the cafeteria table. Ostensibly it is because I am a stupid poopy-head, but really it is because I've asked upsetting questions.
Has anybody here ever watched a Comedy Central Roast? The jokes there are thick with weird sex, constant ethnic references, gay jokes, really gross & offensive stuff. Worse than the joke the judge put in writing. Is anybody who laughs at comedy central roasts a mysogenist, racist or (per Wack-wack) a sociopath? Is the judge's joke so bad because of context?
Mean Scenester wrote:damning of your character
What does my character have to do with anything? Just because people can not deal with an uncomfortable topic, they change subject to my character. Well, that's not unusual, that's people for you.