• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why are Race jokes taboo?

I don't believe he's aware he's flat-out rationalizing racial slurs, in all caps. It's kinda ludicrous.

Yeah, he's kind of arguing that if people make fun of Trump and his supporters, then jokes about niggers and wetbacks are okay too. Kind of like arguing that, if someone screws your wife, it's okay to beat the **** out of their children. It's a completely racist nonsequitur about why it's not okay for minorities to criticize the guy you picked, but like 5 people liked it and that's all the validation needed by some people.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, he's kind of arguing that if people make fun of Trump and his supporters, then jokes about niggers and wetbacks are okay too. Kind of like arguing that, if someone screws your wife, it's okay to beat the **** out of their children. It's a complete nonsequitur, but like 5 people liked it and that's all the validation needed by some people.

It's an obvious and pathetic attempt to support racial slurs and poorly disguised as Trump support. It's so stupid it's Poeish.
 
Yes, and people with liberal arts education are capable of making stupid arguments. Case in point: This thread. You started off with the absurdly false claim that jokes about niggers and wetbacks were in line with 'Trump is a moron' type of jokes. Then you proceeded to argue why that made your situation similar to those of people whose civil rights were being trampled on while jokes were made about them. You essentially proved how silly your argument was in 2 sentences. Your entire premise can be summarized as follows:

1. Making jokes about niggers and wetbacks when they had no rights is wrong.
2. Making jokes about elected officials supported by you is also wrong.
3. Making jokes about elected officials supported by you is equivalent to making jokes about niggers and wetbacks when they had no rights.

The only problem with this is that making jokes about elected political officials has never been equivalent to making racist jokes about minorities. I could care less about your credentials when your posts can be broken down so easily and we see the underlying premise is full of moronic conclusions that are entirely backed whatever subjective assessment you want to add to it.

Breaking down posts so easily and so wrongly is your go-to move in this thread.

Still using pejoratives when non-derogatories would work as well. I assume from this you have no problem with race jokes, but love trump jokes. Interesting myopia. Again.

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your posts for no apparent reason?

You really have no idea what this thread is about or what literary structure is.

I don't know why you continue to post on a topic you so clearly have no clue.
 
It's an obvious and pathetic attempt to support racial slurs and poorly disguised as Trump support.

What are we going to do though? We have posters who will swear that discussing 99.98% of black culture based on the 0.01% of black people who are in prison is perfectly reasonable. However they'll also argue that discussing 99.998% of whites based on the 0.0017% who are in prison is racist. These folks think there aren't enough educated people on this forum to call them out on their bull****. It's amazing.

It was only a matter of time before the argument got reduced to: If you can make fun of Trump for being orange, and me for voting for him - then I can make fun of you for being black and it's all the same!
 
Breaking down posts so easily and so wrongly is your go-to move in this thread.

Still using pejoratives when non-derogatories would work as well. I assume from this you have no problem with race jokes, but love trump jokes. Interesting myopia. Again.

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your posts for no apparent reason?

You really have no idea what this thread is about or what literary structure is.

I don't know why you continue to post on a topic you so clearly have no clue.

See what I mean? Race jokes. What race jokes? You mean Chris Rock? I love him. You mean Dave Chapelle, Louis CK, Payton Oswalt? I love their 'race jokes'. Or do you mean you making a joke about how all black people steal? Or how black culture is just gang banging and baby mamas?

Lol, your claim is so laughably stupid, it's almost amazing that you came back to this thread.
 
See what I mean? Race jokes. What race jokes? You mean Chris Rock? I love him. You mean Dave Chapelle, Louis CK, Payton Oswalt? I love their 'race jokes'. Or do you mean you making a joke about how all black people steal? Or how black culture is just gang banging and baby mamas?

Lol, your claim is so laughably stupid, it's almost amazing that you came back to this thread.

I enjoy Chris Rock and Dave Chapelle. I've heard of the other two, but never seen them work.

You don't understand my claim so your critique is pointless.

I can only cast the pearls.

Would you care to address the STRUCTURE of a race joke and compare it to the STRUCTURE of a Trump joke? Compare and contrast and demonstrate the differences.

Until then, you are merely demonstrating your semi-illiterate grasp of the language.
 
The thread that connects the two genres is the hate held by the tellers and the appreciative audiences of the jokes. No hate for trump, no jokes.

What are the racist tendencies that Trump exhibits? Link?

Hate is YOUR opinion. The Trump ludites have been playing the hate card ten times as much as Obamabots, part of the carefully crafted script written for you by white house propagandists.

If the mass media "hates" Trump (how a group of 100,000 people can hate is sheer idiocy but nonetheless...) then the New York Times would have to be the hater-in-chief, to which Trump turned this morning to address the more comical issues of his so-called administration.

Now why on earth would the idiot-in-chief phone the 'hater in chief", the New York Times to reach out to people, beyond his twit colony? If there is so much "hate" how could a firebrand, over-reactive coward, why would he even try.

He left you oiut to dry on the hate thind

This is horse****, the same bulk sewage spewed every time Obama screwed up, bang! Race card. One criticism about his unending list of stupid, angry, divisive, adolescent behavior and bang! the hate card.

Don't ever post me about hate. It's a desperate and sick attempt to try to regain some integrity, however the depth and ubiquitousness of the Trump crowd makes is stupid and desperate. You insult me with that shallow and obvious attempt at propaganda, Americans seem to like swallowing that ****, but it won't fly here.

Thanks for wasting my time with shallow idiocy.
 
It was facetious, making fun of yokels. On social issues I'm progressive, except guns and mild life.



Thanks, but I would strongly suggest inflamible language misxed "jew" anything mixed with sarcasm is a deadly mix where you do not have the nuance of the spoken word.

Sorry I missed it
 
Hate is YOUR opinion. The Trump ludites have been playing the hate card ten times as much as Obamabots, part of the carefully crafted script written for you by white house propagandists.

If the mass media "hates" Trump (how a group of 100,000 people can hate is sheer idiocy but nonetheless...) then the New York Times would have to be the hater-in-chief, to which Trump turned this morning to address the more comical issues of his so-called administration.

Now why on earth would the idiot-in-chief phone the 'hater in chief", the New York Times to reach out to people, beyond his twit colony? If there is so much "hate" how could a firebrand, over-reactive coward, why would he even try.

He left you oiut to dry on the hate thind

This is horse****, the same bulk sewage spewed every time Obama screwed up, bang! Race card. One criticism about his unending list of stupid, angry, divisive, adolescent behavior and bang! the hate card.

Don't ever post me about hate. It's a desperate and sick attempt to try to regain some integrity, however the depth and ubiquitousness of the Trump crowd makes is stupid and desperate. You insult me with that shallow and obvious attempt at propaganda, Americans seem to like swallowing that ****, but it won't fly here.

Thanks for wasting my time with shallow idiocy.

You sound upset.

Did I say the mass media hates Trump? I think my point is that the structure of the Trump jokes and the structure of the Race jokes are the same AND that the Tellers and the audiences for both are identified by their hate of the object of the jokes.

You seem to prove my point with your post.

Regarding the media, they LOVED Trump when he was making his GOP opponents look stupid. Now that he's exposing the media's stupidity, not so much. Go figure...
 
I was raised in a house with a smoker. I thought all houses smelled like that until I went into a house that had no smokers.

You suffer from the same bias as I did, but the bias you hold is you left leaning paradigm. You don't seem to "smell" the Liberalism because you live in it.

There is no good and there is no bad in the presentation of news as it relates to bias. It is only bias.

There is ethical and unethical in this, however, and this is any departure from the fair presentation of events as opposed to narrative presented in its place.

I am glad that you do recognize that there are differences in the presentation and selection of the events of the day reported by the various outlets.

Interesting to me is that you seem to criticize only the right side of the biased presentations. Do you not see any bias, either leftist or rightist to be genuinely propagandistic? If not, you need to re-examine your paradigms.

If you are comfortable knowing that one side or the other is primarily propaganda, but you STILL prefer to accept it as truth, that is a problem that will hurt you.

I think that you may be referencing local news coverage which seems to me to be pretty straight forward, factual coverage. The national coverage departs from this and moves into narrative.

Think of the presentation of the views of John McCain and you will see a narrative.

My take on this is somewhat different, as I think local news has a bias in the way it covers issues, tending towards more dramatic accidents and gunplay, away from boring stuff like how business and, say, labor interact locally. As noted here, I think US national media is pretty much middle of the road, except on social issues. If it has a bias, it may be that it does not often present things in a greater international perspective, which makes it more conservative. Some of that is understandable: we are a large country with only two borders, and tend to look inward as much as outward. And media often cover the horse race rather than the issue. But my experience with reporters and media both local and national, doing a couple of interviews a month in my past life, showed me that they may have a bias towards reporting conflicting opinions or towards the underdog, but in general try to get it right.

But you may also still be in a smoke filled house. We are a center-right, conservative nation where money is key in politics. Consider current US positions on climate treaty, international law and agreements, Guantanamo, healthcare, etc., issues already resolved in countries similar to ours. We have been the sole, dissenting vote on many international decisions, not as bad as the Soviet Union used to be in the 50s, but still pretty noticeable. I remember speaking with a conservative politician from England or Holland, who told me that he would probably be considered left-wing here. Down the middle reporting, if that is possible, can seem leftish to us. I think our media is biased towards a pretty liberal (in the old sense of the word) center, geared towards a socially progressive, generally fiscally conservative audience?

Years ago the media noted daily the toll of days our people had been held hostage in Iran, their jailing in violation of fundamental principles of law. If the media repeatedly noted the tally of days prisoners were kept without trial, charge or lawyers in GTMO, in violation of fundamental principles of law, they could be called leftish, though I would call them patriotic.
 
You sound upset.

Did I say the mass media hates Trump?
I think my point is that the structure of the Trump jokes and the structure of the Race jokes are the same AND that the Tellers and the audiences for both are identified by their hate of the object of the jokes.

You seem to prove my point with your post.

Regarding the media, they LOVED Trump when he was making his GOP opponents look stupid. Now that he's exposing the media's stupidity, not so much. Go figure...




Which is why your point is stupid, crappy, and wrong; deliberately obtuse, I'd venture.
 
You sound upset.

Did I say the mass media hates Trump? I think my point is that the structure of the Trump jokes and the structure of the Race jokes are the same AND that the Tellers and the audiences for both are identified by their hate of the object of the jokes.

You seem to prove my point with your post.

Regarding the media, they LOVED Trump when he was making his GOP opponents look stupid. Now that he's exposing the media's stupidity, not so much. Go figure...



Oh stop, now you're reaching.

Yes I am upset, I am sic k from all the ****ing lying and bull**** from the same people who went ape **** on Obama for far less.

I cannot hypocrisy and if you look the word up I suspect it would pictures of you guys
 
<snip> As noted here, I think US national media is pretty much middle of the road, except on social issues. If it has a bias, it may be that it does not often present things in a greater international perspective, which makes it more conservative. Some of that is understandable: we are a large country with only two borders, and tend to look inward as much as outward. And media often cover the horse race rather than the issue. But my experience with reporters and media both local and national, doing a couple of interviews a month in my past life, showed me that they may have a bias towards reporting conflicting opinions or towards the underdog, but in general try to get it right.

But you may also still be in a smoke filled house. We are a center-right, conservative nation where money is key in politics. Consider current US positions on climate treaty, international law and agreements, Guantanamo, healthcare, etc., issues already resolved in countries similar to ours. We have been the sole, dissenting vote on many international decisions, not as bad as the Soviet Union used to be in the 50s, but still pretty noticeable. I remember speaking with a conservative politician from England or Holland, who told me that he would probably be considered left-wing here. Down the middle reporting, if that is possible, can seem leftish to us. I think our media is biased towards a pretty liberal (in the old sense of the word) center, geared towards a socially progressive, generally fiscally conservative audience?

Years ago the media noted daily the toll of days our people had been held hostage in Iran, their jailing in violation of fundamental principles of law. If the media repeatedly noted the tally of days prisoners were kept without trial, charge or lawyers in GTMO, in violation of fundamental principles of law, they could be called leftish, though I would call them patriotic.


(edited for length-sorry)
What laws cover the incarceration of enemy combatants captured on the battlefield in time of war while the war is ongoing? I think you may have confused US civilian law with the Geneva Convention.

One of the topics you included in the laundry list is the US position on the climate change treaty. This is an excellent example of selective news reporting. The Trillion or so dollars it will cost the world to implement the climate accord policies are said by experts to hopefully produce a reduction of warming of about one tenth of one degree by 2100. What's wrong with this picture? Also, with or without that expenditure of cash, the globe will STILL not be as warm as it was during this interglacial's climate peak or at the peak warmth of any interglacial over the last half million years.

This should tell you a couple very important facts about the reporting on this topic: 1. The relative coolness of our current climate is COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY UN-reported. 2. The NATURAL warming of the relatively recent geological global climate was greater than the ANTHROPOGENIC PLUS NATURAL warming of today. IF this is not readily apparent to everyone, THEN the reporting is biased and probably intentionally so.

A robust debate should progress in our society and that debate should be reported by the media. However, that debate is being CONDUCTED BETWEEN the biased media organizations.

The result is that Candy Crowley assists Barrack Obama in a debate, Anderson Cooper rolls his eyes during an interview he is conducting as a hostile interrogator and Martha Raddatz is on the verge of tears reporting that Donald Trump won the election.

If these are not examples of a ridiculous extreme of Liberal Leaning bias in the CNN crew, you will need to explain to me what bias is. The FOX crew is also biased, but not invested so emotionally as the Liberal debating opponents at CNN.

In Indianapolis where I watch local news, the lean is pretty much non-existent. Our mayor is Democrat and our Governor is Republican. I happen to have voted for both, but the reporting would not betray their party affiliation. That is ignored.

The first 15 minutes or so of every local news cast is murders, rapes, assaults, fires and traffic accidents. If it bleeds, it leads.

As a top 20 market, the production values are pretty good. The on air talent are professional, polished and slick. When the President or Vice President visits and is covered, the coverage is a news report. He went here, he said this, he left on an airplane. No value judgements, no framing of message with biased edits. News reporting.

Andre Carson is my Congressman. When his comments are aired, his comments are aired. Same with Todd Young and Joe Donnelly. Party affiliation is rarely reported. Only if it's essential to the story.

THIS is reporting.

Our national media is cheerleading.
 
Which is why your point is stupid, crappy, and wrong; deliberately obtuse, I'd venture.

I understand that you disagree with what I explained.

Care to offer an explanation as to why you disagree?

Please compare a Race joke to a Rump joke and demonstrate in which ways they are not similar.
 
Oh stop, now you're reaching.

Yes I am upset, I am sic k from all the ****ing lying and bull**** from the same people who went ape **** on Obama for far less.

I cannot hypocrisy and if you look the word up I suspect it would pictures of you guys

That picture is absent. Once again, your suspicions are shown to be unfounded. Perhaps the result of being upset...

I understand that you disagree. Please tell me why.

A good place to start might be to compare and contrast a Race koke to a Trump joke and demonstrate that they are completely dissimilar.
 
I see that you hate.

You must think Trump jokes are very, very funny.

Good for you!

Good for your club of hatred.

To tell jokes is to hate. Interesting concept.

I'm sure you've never told a joke about, say, Obama.
 
I understand that you disagree with what I explained.

Care to offer an explanation as to why you disagree?

Please compare a Race joke to a Rump joke and demonstrate in which ways they are not similar.



I did.



Well, I'll have to take your response now, but I'd like to hear the response from the people who "liked" this idiotic stupidity.

Why, you or they, is supporting Trump like any of the following:


1. Race (skin color/features determined by genetics, but still no genetic "races". There are species and sub-species, but human "races" do not conform).

2. Color

3. Religion

4. National Origin

5. Age

6. Sex

7. Sexual Orientation



The question is important and specific, because "hate speech", "hate crimes", etc, are directed at constitutionally protected classes. Apart from religion, these are things one does not choose. I suspect that you don't want to compare supporting a politician (Trump) with being religious.

And how's it like criticizing Trump? Joking about Trump? He chooses to behave the way he does.

(It wasn't so great grammatically speaking).



Then you ran away:

You seem to have missed entirely the point of my post. That's okay.





One isn't born a Trump supporter. One doesn't have to say anything about Trump. One does not have the choice with regards to being a member of a race.
 
Last edited:
Lately, many comedians are making jokes about Trump that are funny to those who hate Trump.

These jokes are very similar to jokes of a bygone age that always used minorities or members of hated races as the punch line.

The situation was not the joke- the hated race member was the joke and the malady or mishap that befell them was seen to be deserved and that is what made the joke.

The Race based jokes involved the inability of the butts of the jokes to restrain their imagined instinctual responses or imagined deeply held desires. The humor depended on the bias and hate held by the audience and the teller to be funny.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HATE-BASED JOKES INTENDED TO DEMEAN AND DIMINISH MINORITIES AND THE SAME JOKES INTENDED TO DEMEAN AND DIMINISH TRUMP.

Oh for the days of Johnny Carson when he actually could tell a joke that was funny because it was funny.

When will the illegitimate heirs to Carson's legacy figure out that the jokes they tell brand them as the shallow, prejudiced and biased, hate mongers that they claim to despise.


Care to offer US an example?

ANY monologue of ANY random night that you choose to watch one of those extremely liberal late night comedians...

At least Leno made fun of both sides equally, which was refreshing... Colbert, Fallon, Kimmel, etc. pander to their liberal viewership...

Why Late Night Hosts Like Jimmy Kimmel Are Suddenly So Political

Jimmy Kimmel On Losing Conservative Viewers: 'Not Good Riddance, But Riddance' | Daily Wire

Jimmy Kimmel on losing Republican viewers of his late-night comedy show: 'Not good riddance, but riddance'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-health-care-failure/?utm_term=.bfc497fe4e64

idk... I could do this all day if I had the time... just do a google search, the info is out there...
 
To tell jokes is to hate. Interesting concept.

I'm sure you've never told a joke about, say, Obama.

As you so often do, you have once again attacked a straw man instead of the actual topic.

Here's is what you are supporting from earlier in the thread:

"All jokes that reinforce negative stereotypes and use prejudice an bias to attack and segregate are abhorrent.

BOTH race jokes and Trump jokes do this.

In case you had no clue."

YOU are supporting jokes that reinforce negative stereotypes and use prejudice an bias to attack and segregate. Not all jokes. Just those that foster hate and division.

No surprise to me. Might be to others.

Jokes about Obama? More often about the deification he was accorded. Sometimes about the Democrats in general. I don't recall personally ever joking about the color of his skin, his hair, the size of his hands or the nature of his speech.

ALL of these topics seem to be grist for the comedy mill with Trump.
 
Last edited:
I did.





(It wasn't so great grammatically speaking).



Then you ran away:







One isn't born a Trump supporter. One doesn't have to say anything about Trump. One does not have the choice with regards to being a member of a race.

I said that you missed the point of my post entirely and you continue to prove that you did.

Any joke that requires pre-understood hate and biases to be funny fits into the (fill in the blank)- joke category.

You are possessed of the idea that one kind of unthinking, reflexive hate is less hateful than another kind of unthinking, reflexive hate. I don't understand what the difference is that you see.

What targets of unthinking, reflexive hate are more deserving of hate in your world of unthinking, reflexive bias? Why?
 
ANY monologue of ANY random night that you choose to watch one of those extremely liberal late night comedians...

At least Leno made fun of both sides equally, which was refreshing... Colbert, Fallon, Kimmel, etc. pander to their liberal viewership...

Why Late Night Hosts Like Jimmy Kimmel Are Suddenly So Political

Jimmy Kimmel On Losing Conservative Viewers: 'Not Good Riddance, But Riddance' | Daily Wire

Jimmy Kimmel on losing Republican viewers of his late-night comedy show: 'Not good riddance, but riddance'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-health-care-failure/?utm_term=.bfc497fe4e64

idk... I could do this all day if I had the time... just do a google search, the info is out there...

The choice of the comedians material and the decided bias they display is apparently a profitable path to take or they would not be doing so.

The willing blindness of the audience being duped is what is concerning to me.

The next step will probably be stars sewn onto the outfits of those that have been chosen to be the appointed enemies of the elites.

Even in this thread, there are a huge number that justify blind, reflexive hate because they hold the blind, reflexive hate.

We live in a world in which being on the right "side" is more important to many than having a logical, well reasoned set of principles to guide their actions.

They "hate" those things they are told to hate and cannot see that the corrosive element is the hate, not the things.

They don't see that the mob they have joined in is a lynch mob. It couldn't be. They hate lynch mobs, too, as well as the guy they conspire to lynch. A logical conundrum they cannot grasp.
 
The choice of the comedians material and the decided bias they display is apparently a profitable path to take or they would not be doing so.

The willing blindness of the audience being duped is what is concerning to me.

The next step will probably be stars sewn onto the outfits of those that have been chosen to be the appointed enemies of the elites.

Even in this thread, there are a huge number that justify blind, reflexive hate because they hold the blind, reflexive hate.

We live in a world in which being on the right "side" is more important to many than having a logical, well reasoned set of principles to guide their actions.

They "hate" those things they are told to hate and cannot see that the corrosive element is the hate, not the things.

They don't see that the mob they have joined in is a lynch mob. It couldn't be. They hate lynch mobs, too, as well as the guy they conspire to lynch. A logical conundrum they cannot grasp.

Exactly. There is an insane amount of hate out there, and the left claims that it comes from everybody else but them, but in reality, the vast majority of it comes from them. It's scary how easy it truly is to expose leftist hypocrisy...
 
Well, that wasn't my intention.

My intention was to show that the Trump-jokes that comedians tell that are funny only because they have Trump as the Butt of the Joke. In this respect, they are formatted EXACTLY as the racial slurring jokes of the past were formatted.

My intention was to condemn both of the presented examples: BOTH Trump and Racial slurs. I suppose if you have no issue with one, then you have no issue with the other and so your confusion rises as evidenced by your post.

How about this: I have a problem with people who make jokes that demean people based on their race. I don’t have a problem with jokes that demean Trump because of his politics, narcissism or the fact that he has demeaned people because of their race (or gender).
 
How about this: I have a problem with people who make jokes that demean people based on their race. I don’t have a problem with jokes that demean Trump because of his politics, narcissism or the fact that he has demeaned people because of their race (or gender).

I like humor.

I dislike hate and hate based actions.

IF the jokes about Trump that you enjoy are funny because they are funny, that's terrific.

Most of them are funny only because they attack and demean.

As an example, there are legions of jokes regarding Trump having orange skin or a particular kind of hair. I would guess you enjoy these.

Were you similarly amused by jokes regarding the color of Obama's skin or his particular kind of hair?
 
I like humor.

I dislike hate and hate based actions.

IF the jokes about Trump that you enjoy are funny because they are funny, that's terrific.

Most of them are funny only because they attack and demean.

As an example, there are legions of jokes regarding Trump having orange skin or a particular kind of hair. I would guess you enjoy these.

Were you similarly amused by jokes regarding the color of Obama's skin or his particular kind of hair?

Don’t enjoy jokes about Trump’s hair or skin, most are silly, and I saw him good-naturedly allow a late night host to muss his hair up. There is no need to make jokes about his appearance as he has done about women, or make up facts about him, as he does so frequently. But his narcissism, extraordinary lying and cynical use of race cry out for satire and ridicule.
 
Back
Top Bottom