the suggestion that jokes are harmless; they are not. — unenlightened

Can a good joke not be at least somewhat harmful to someone?

The majority of jokes have a little kernel of honest cruelty in them. Jokes about the English, for instance, are generally a mite insulting. The English butt of the joke is depicted as critically inadequate in some way -- culinarily, sexually, linguistically, politically... something.

A joke has to hit home in some small way to be funny. A joke about how gays are style blind (meaning that they couldn't tell a polka dot from a plaid if their lives depended on it) isn't funny, because it doesn't resonate. A joke about gays and promiscuous oral sex has a better chance of success--it has a bit of cruel truthfulness to it. (Can a gay man safely laugh at a joke about gays and oral sex? Probably not.)

Maybe we should not even be telling jokes.

What sort of jokes do you tell, or laugh at? Silly limericks? Safe puns? Cockney rhymes?

The truth is that sometimes jokes are harmless, sometimes they're not, and the degree of harm can vary - all of which depend on content and context. This was one of the points of the article, and it was pretty clear.

It's easier to criticise the suggestion that nobody here seems to have suggested, that jokes are harmless, and it's easier to criticise its contrary, claimed by unenlightened, that jokes are not harmless.

But what would I know about jokes? X-)

Can a good joke not be at least somewhat harmful to someone? — Bitter Crank

Like the man said, it's all about context. If the context is The Last Leg, a show hosted by disabled comics, disability jokes and gross insults between them are fine by me, but I wouldn't feel at all fine making some of those same jokes at the disabled hotel where I used to work.

Yes cruelty is part of much humour, and the critical contexts it seems to me relate to power and responsibility on the one hand, and ubiquity and avoidability on the other. I generally prefer jokes directed at power and status to those directed by power and status at vulnerability; or jokes directed at oneself rather than at others.

So gay jokes by gays to gays are potentially empowering, but gay jokes at my boarding school back in the day when homosexuality was a crime were disempowering. Likewise, jokes about tits amongst women are one thing, and the same jokes in a male- dominated workplace are another.

So where are we? The best philosophy forum on the net, I'd say, and one that is, like most of philosophy, dominated by white men. So what kind of humour is appropriate here? Well you know my opinion.

So where are we? The best philosophy forum on the net, I'd say, and one that is, like most of philosophy, dominated by white men. So what kind of humour is appropriate here? Well you know my opinion. — unenlightened

So it's only appropriate to joke about dominating white men here? You must be having a laugh.

Some workplace banter treats the subject of the banter as a sexual tool and is thus wrong. This is not always the case, but sexual harassment, even in a verbal form, is not necessarily harmless, irrespective of the target's views on the matter

So where are we? The best philosophy forum on the net, I'd say, and one that is, like most of philosophy, dominated by white men. — unenlightened

We are on the best philosophy forum on the net and as it often does, it reflects what is going on in the society at large.

"Contextualizing a workplace conversation helps us determine what falls on which side of the harassment line, but it’s still a distinction that’s extremely difficult to articulate, and even harder to prove."

True. The difficulty has arisen because something has been thrown away. The distinction is easily articulated as 'good manners' and the proof was to respect other people's feelings and to put the needs of others before one's own. These things still exist and are thankfully very common but people feel embarrassed and prudish to mention them in such easily understood terms. So they are driven to talk about contextualisation, appropriateness, banter, harassment, disempowerment and oppression: all useful concepts, but often invoked where 'let's mind our manners' will do the job well enough.

So they are driven to talk about contextualisation, appropriateness, banter, harassment, disempowerment and oppression: all useful concepts, but often invoked where 'let's mind our manners' will do the job well enough. — Cuthbert

When people are on a crusade to do things like destroy "the patriarchy", it won't do the job for them at all to say "Let's mind our manners". On the contrary, they'll likely tell you that those manners were created by men in a male-dominated society in order to keep women in their place and maintain male privilege.

The irony is that they don't see how censoring speech is itself a form of oppression.

What has gotten lost in all of this is respect. People have a right to their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, attitudes, etc. Other people have a right not to be exposed against their will to those thoughts, feelings, beliefs, attitudes, etc. when they are harmful. People on neither side of the issue mutually respects those rights, it seems.

It is all self-interested politics and extremist ideology, it seems safe to say.

The workplace in industrial society probably wasn't very diverse at one time. But it is very diverse now. Part of that diversity includes people who like to indulge in banter, dirty jokes, etc. Condemning them as misogynists, male chauvinists, an old boy network, female enablers of misogyny, etc. is no more inclusive than their words and actions that make the workplace uncomfortable for people not like them. Should feminists in the workplace be allowed to say things in front of everybody like, "Men are all misogynists afraid of losing their privilege"? That is not anymore inclusive than non-African-Americans using the n word.

But not only do we have people in this thread who are not speaking on behalf of respect and inclusiveness for all, we have them saying that some people's thoughts and words "belong in the toilet". We have them saying that anybody who tells certain jokes is a contributor to genocide and other evils.

It is illiberalism, basically. It is McCarthyism.

None us are omniscient. None of us can read other people's minds. Somebody telling a joke could be a card-carrying misogynist, racist, homophobe, etc. Or he/she could be caving in
to pressure to fit in against his/her better judgement. Or he/she may not know better; he/she may honestly believe that the joke is harmless and would be surprised to learn that anybody was hurt or offended by it. Only he/she knows. It is not the job of the government or other organizations that serve the public to judge people. Moral witch hunts are not a good use of resources by government or business. That is probably why the diversity program at one job I had said, "Focus on the behavior, not the person".

Clearly, we have people here who want to co-opt government and business to indirectly censor things that they believe cause social harm. In my humble opinion, they are no less illiberal than a business owner who denies homosexuals public accommodations as a way to advance his/her ideology, agenda, etc.

Everybody's focus should be on finding a happy medium that makes the workplace and other environments as inclusive as possible in a diverse, pluralistic liberal democracy. Calling people misogynists cannot be part of that inclusiveness. Insisting on having the right to tell jokes that some people find hurtful or offensive cannot be part of it either.

Alas, we live in a time when society is extremely polarized. Things like compromise, respect for those who disagree with you, finding common ground, etc. seem to be a thing of the past. Just look at how this thread has unfolded if you do not know what I mean.

— unenlightened

— ArguingWAristotleTiff

See here.

When people are on a crusade to do things like destroy "the patriarchy", it won't do the job for them at all to say "Let's mind our manners". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Indeed. 'Crusade' is perhaps a tad hyperbolic, but it seems inevitable in a topic like this that there will be some unpleasantness. Nobody has been burned at the stake so far, but there is no painless way to say to someone, 'I think you are behaving badly, and you need to change'. I accept that I have made myself unpleasant, and also that I have at times over-reacted and expressed myself unnecessarily harshly. Nobody's perfect, and one really needs to be perfect when criticising others. Still, there are some charges that I will offer a defence to, if I may.

The irony is that they don't see how censoring speech is itself a form of oppression. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

This is a commonplace nonsense. To claim that the prevention of oppression is oppression is simply to refuse to allow any meaning to the term. It does not require a bully to prevent bullying.

It is all self-interested politics and extremist ideology, it seems safe to say. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

'Extremist' is rather unclear; I would think that anything a long way from one's own position seems extreme, but in that sense it is not any criticism. But since I am a man arguing on behalf of women philosophers, I reject the charge of self-interest. It is not safe to say that.

Part of that diversity includes people who like to indulge in banter, dirty jokes, etc. Condemning them as misogynists, male chauvinists, an old boy network, female enablers of misogyny, etc. is no more inclusive than their words and actions that make the workplace uncomfortable for people not like them. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well you are using a language that has not been much used: "male chauvinists, an old boy network, female enablers of misogyny". It's a long thread, and I might have missed them, but I don't recollect using or seeing these terms.

Should feminists in the workplace be allowed to say things in front of everybody like, "Men are all misogynists afraid of losing their privilege"? That is not anymore inclusive than non-African-Americans using the n word.

No. But no one has suggested that they should be, and no one has said anything of the sort on this thread either.

But not only do we have people in this thread who are not speaking on behalf of respect and inclusiveness for all, we have them saying that some people's thoughts and words "belong in the toilet". We have them saying that anybody who tells certain jokes is a contributor to genocide and other evils.

I'll plead guilty to the first, but not guilty to the second. I pointed out that humour can be and has been used, and generally has the effect of, normalising and legitimising dehumanising attitudes. That does not equate to accusing anyone who tells an off-colour joke, or shows the effect of such normalising of genocide. Nevertheless, genocide can be the extreme result of such dehumanising, and this is a fact that should give one good reason to be careful. Genocide is not committed by monsters, but by ordinary and even intelligent people - people like me, and people like anyone else.

Somebody telling a joke could be a card-carrying misogynist, racist, homophobe, etc. Or he/she could be caving in
to pressure to fit in against his/her better judgement. Or he/she may not know better; he/she may honestly believe that the joke is harmless and would be surprised to learn that anybody was hurt or offended by it. Only he/she knows. It is not the job of the government or other organizations that serve the public to judge people. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

But that is the job of the government. I remember a time when it was quite normal for folks to drink six pints of beer and then drive home, and there was no law against it. It was made illegal, and a long campaign was waged by the government to make it socially unacceptable - against a deal of opposition along the lines of "not the government's business, a restriction of freedom, nanny state, how do they know what I'm like after six pints," etc. Folks honestly believed it was harmless. And they felt insulted, oppressed and angry when told that it was not.

A lawyer commenting on a secretary's anatomy is very off limits. A secretary commenting on a lawyer's anatomy would seem manipulative. Of course, not everyone abides by the rules. — Hanover

Some secretaries are much better than others. X-)

That's kinda the point Sap is making, I think. It's not sexual harassment - as in unwelcomed - if the parties involved aren't offended. Is it?

I know lots of folk who wouldn't be offended at all with innocent playful remarks that are not intended to harm. I also know lots of folk who hold that all sexual remarks are offensive. The law errs on the side of the latter.

I think the focus of the media is a bit shallow. The problem is that some folk are offended by it, and those folks' rights haven't been honored. Those folk have been institutionally vilified in a manner akin to institutional racism still prevalent in some ways in the States.

Isn't witnessing a crime but not reporting it against the law?

"Contextualizing a workplace conversation helps us determine what falls on which side of the harassment line, but it’s still a distinction that’s extremely difficult to articulate, and even harder to prove."

True. The difficulty has arisen because something has been thrown away. The distinction is easily articulated as 'good manners' and the proof was to respect other people's feelings and to put the needs of others before one's own. These things still exist and are thankfully very common but people feel embarrassed and prudish to mention them in such easily understood terms. So they are driven to talk about contextualisation, appropriateness, banter, harassment, disempowerment and oppression: all useful concepts, but often invoked where 'let's mind our manners' will do the job well enough. — Cuthbert

Here's an idea. We could mind our manners, but not at all times, so as to allow for occasional workplace banter, which sometimes really is just harmless fun. It's all about common sense.

Alternatively, we could all have a stick up our respective arse.

"Alternatively, we could all have a stick up our respective arse."

It's the 'don't be a prude' objection that I mentioned.. But if a person has to demean or domineer in order to have a laugh then learning manners (respect and putting others first) is not the only challenge facing them, though it is probably one of them.

Common sense is only understood when people already have a shared view. But it's only appealed to or needed when they don't. So it's a concept of rather limited use.

On the question whether smashing the patriarchy that invented manners as a way of oppressing women is more important:- I think the patriarchy in question is the process of men belittling, disrespecting, domineering and excluding women from opportunities. I doubt whether that patriarchy invented good manners (respect and self-denial). It's not the patriarchal style. But there is lot of under-cover demeaning that masquerades as good manners. I can quite believe the patriarchy invented that.

I pretty much agree with Masha Gessen's recent articles about these issues in the New Yorker.

In the current American conversation, women are increasingly treated as children: defenseless, incapable of consent, always on the verge of being victimized. This should give us pause. Being infantilized has never worked out well for women. — Masha Gessen

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/sex-consent-dangers-of-misplaced-scale

The other relevant one:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/when-does-a-watershed-become-a-sex-panic

One of the most important points she makes, aside from the one about the infantilization of women, is that sexual assault and harassment (the latter of which I think can be usefully defined here as repeated and sometimes coercive sexual advances when the advancer knows his attention is unwelcome) are trivialized when they're conflated with unwelcome flirting (you don't know until you try) and drunken bad sex. That this conflation is happening in the present discourse I think shows that predatory and coercive sexual behaviour is being essentialized as something intrinsic to being a man, on a continuum alongside normal sexual interaction.

There's a pretty balanced podcast on Slate where they talk about whether what we're seeing is a moral panic ("sex panic"). Generally they see it as a very good thing that sexual coercion and assault are being exposed, but they do have concerns that it is indeed becoming a moral panic--and personally I would go much further than they do in those concerns.

http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/doublex_gabfest/2017/11/doublex_gabfest_on_kill_all_normies_sex_panic_and_she_s_gotta_have_it.html?ref=hvper.com

Perhaps all dating, sexual encounters, and intimate male/female relations in general are victimizing women in unfair power dynamics. Well, if it hastens antinatalism- so be it. Less dating, less sex, less people are born, less suffering in the world.

Everyone can move to their respective lonely corners, reflect on the absurdity of the 80+ possible years of their human life, maintaining themselves, occupying their minds with whatever entertainments, bearing the burdens of whatever harms, and generally being pricks to each other in the process of having to live in a society. Cheers!

Happy Friday to you too Schop! X-)

Just trying to bring some Friday cheer to the conversation! ;) No good?

. Neither participant was a victim. If no others had been present it would be hard to find anything to complain about. But others were present, so there were other potential victims. — andrewk

I understand the point you're making with the rest of your post, but calling someone a victim because they might have heard a disagreeable joke is taking the victim card way, way too far. We run the risk of making victim a meaningless term if we stretch it to include hearing anything possibly offensive.

I've heard tons of offensive things over my life, as has everyone, and I'm not a victim for it. But of course it all depends on context in the workplace. The OP's first example was not a case where hearing a joke would be victimizing anyone.

Bah! Humbug!

The Sex Panic has arrived. We have a prominent cause célèbre here in Minnesota.

Garrison Keillor, the Prairie Home Companion himself, has been publicly repudiated by Minnesota Public Radio and the Washington Post. Keillor worked for MPR for several decades, bringing in a tremendous amount of fame and revenue for the organization. The "inappropriate sexual behavior" as described by MPR was inadvertently touching the bare skin on the back of a female performer on the show (backstage) who had been telling him of various unhappy events in her life. He intended to merely pat her on the back. She flinched, he apologized personally and in writing, she accepted the apology, and said "don't think about it". Keillor said he had considered her a friend until she showed up at MPR with a lawyer, 10 years after the "event".

Apparently, just guessing, she was wearing a short vest-type blouse over a low backed dress. Where he expected to encounter cloth, he touched bare skin -- on her back--not rear end, not breast, not thigh.

So, ONE ten year old complaint about a non-event resulted in MPR severing all connections with Keillor. (He had retired from performing a year or so ago -- he's 75.) No more re-runs of the PHC, no more carrying the excellent Writer's Almanac, a daily 5 minute piece on literature. They're even dropping the name of the Prairie Home Companion for the show which somebody else now hosts.

The Washington Post, for whom Keillor is an occasional columnist, also fired Keillor. Keillor had written a column last week defending Al Franken, one of Minnesota's Senators.

I think women can tell the difference among an accidental touch, flirtation or a pass, a sexual advance that persists past initial rejection, an assault, and rape. I have to assume that when women come forward with the sort of complaint lodged against Keillor (and some others) that they are doing so dishonestly, or are delusional about what happened.

There's a pretty balanced podcast on Slate where they talk about whether what we're seeing is a moral panic ("sex panic"). Generally they see it as a very good thing that sexual coercion and assault are being exposed, but they do have concerns that it is indeed becoming a moral panic--and personally I would go much further than they do in those concerns. — jamalrob

It is a balancing act that takes time to form socially just as much as post-colonial political regimes in formerly tribal communities need to find that balance between liberal democracy and compartmentalising pluralism that challenges the cultural identification to sovereignty. So, from the initial state of infantilisation where women' place is in the kitchen, that they belong to their husband and had no mind, no ambition or opinion but their sole purpose was to bear children came the sexual revolution, but that tipped the scale to yet another extreme where the continuity of this idea that they are sexual objects remained, but different. The "panic" so to speak lies in this assumption.

I had a conversation once with a UN representative to Afghanistan and she said that once when she was in Sri Lanka, she was responsible for organising a program that supports young women from a particular community to understand their rights and the importance of education and it was a great success but also a great failure. The success was that the women certainly did identify with program and wanted to reach out for more in life, but the failure was that the men in the community found that to be deplorable and it backlashed in a very extreme way. The moral point is that education about women and their rights requires both men and women to be involved in union.

In saying all that, the only thing we need is to appreciate respect. We need to respect one another and if one woman is more flirtatious or welcoming to sexual advances than another woman, it does not make the latter a frigid or the former a slut. It is their decision and we need to respect that. It is balancing liberty without the compartmentalisation or our cultural identification to moral behaviour.

I have learnt that in my community men seem to wait for women to respond (whereas I am more the type of 'traditional' person that waits for men to show interest) and I think that the reason the former is the case is because men are starting to respect women. Both have their risks; if I show interest, would I be disrespected? If I don't, would they think I have no interest? That is why friendship enables respect and a gradual bond would form from that. It is just respecting other people.

I understand the point you're making with the rest of your post, but calling someone a victim because they might have heard a disagreeable joke is taking the victim card way, way too far. — Marchesk

I agree, and if you read the paragraph carefully, you'll see that that's not what it says.

I agree, and if you read the paragraph carefully, you'll see that that's not what it says. — andrewk

That reply strikes me as evasive and pedantic. The paragraph contained a reference to potential victims based on their presence in the room. Are you going to tell me that hearing a disagreeable joke was not part of the scenario of potential victims which you had in mind?

All social relations related to friendship or romantic partners are about bargaining for loneliness. Humans are more-or-less social creatures, but with varying degrees and tendencies. The ones able to be by themselves for longer periods of time are the most valuable. They generally have the most power as the more "needier" party is always lacking, while the alone party only needs him/herself. The power dynamic is actually about which person feels the need to be around other people more. But, this kind of folk philosophizing is where the real stuff happens.

All social relations related to friendship or romantic partners are about bargaining for loneliness. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps 'all' is much too all-encompassing and while I agree insofar as we are separate from the external world and thus isolated from others, it is about how that loneliness is overcome and the authenticity of the bond between two people. Erich Fromm states this perfectly:

“If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism”

A majority of relationships are attachments that one becomes dependent on for a number of reasons and I think the word 'bargaining' is perfect in describing this. The financial rewards, the social standing, people are not authentically 'falling in love' (where they admire the person, the things that they think and feel) but rather they 'like' what that person offers to them and so it is egotistical rather than empathic; as though on auto-pilot, to make sure that the security of this relation remains static regularly state 'I love you' and yet in secret do a number of other things to survive the very same loneliness.

The authenticity behind genuine love is to form an actual bond with someone who genuinely understands you, that you overcome this loneliness because the person is able to actually identify with something deeper (hence the empathic) and sometimes you can fall in love with someone who is not what you thought you wanted, who is completely different but yet there you are connecting with them.

I once thought I loved a young man, but I actually later realised he was all in my imagination and the reality left was this vicious and perhaps even insane person that I thought was beautiful. I wanted to give my love - and I can be incredibly loving - to a crazy man. I was torn between trying to work with him to get him to grow up and become man enough to speak from his heart and my desire to have him go away and leave me alone, because as he refused and was stuck in that world where the opinions of others mattered more to him than his own existence while at the same time frightened me too by playing numerous games that made me think that he ultimately wanted to hurt me. I guess I just believed in him, but he turned out to be disappointing.

I learnt a great lesson from that; loneliness can effect how you identify with others that you can even imagine things that do not exist and while most often it is a bargaining process, the two opposites of this central theme are either genuine love or insanity.

Interesting post, and seems to provide some good evidence of the unhappiness of romantic love. In tribal societies, perhaps this area is a bit less complicated, but we have made it an overwrought and over-complicated subject in the "modern" world of the individualized marketplace.

If I use Schopenhauer's psychological mechanisms as a model- we are basically driven by the pendulum swing of survival (via cultural institutions), comfort-seeking (we need to do various things to improve our comfort), and boredom (we need to occupy our minds). Loneliness is essentially one degree away from boredom. It is a boredom that happens from not having company or friends or an intimate partner. Thus we fill this need by seeking out partners to connect with physically and on an emotional level. It is just part of the human animal, and like I said.. is a special case of fleeing boredom and is only relevant to social creatures such as the human being.

The problem is, where people at one time were able to fill this loneliness aversion in very close quarters (in tribal societies), where they had limited options that were none-the-less suitable to the culture, that is not the case anymore in modern societies. These societies also had tried and true traditions for courtship. However, the modern world is driven by an overabundance of options. The more atomized the individual is in their "unique" personality, their "unique" interests, their "unique" desires, fewer and fewer people will fit the mold of the ideal lover. Intimate relations quickly become just a lifestyle choice. The new behavior pattern and cognitive outlook is to be emotionally detached. Shallow connections become the norm. In the modern world, the people most emotionally detached will have a leg-up. True connections will become rarer and rarer as people will become self-absorbed. One has to open up to the other, and in a culture where options are plentiful, yet shallow, this will not happen often as no one is good enough for anyone's "unique" personality, interests, and needs. There are less clear courtship rituals, more murky, leading to probably stuff that has been discussed in this thread. People don't know what they want in terms of emotional/physical connection. People don't know how to channel their need for intimate relations. Social relations become awkward and strained rather than natural and easy. Lifestyle trumps loneliness and the most emotionally detached, and with the least desire for connection wins this game. Romantic visions of fate, kismet, "it will just happen", and similar slogans are thrown out there, as agency in this department becomes less clear. They push it on to forces out of their control. But these slogans just continue the murkiness and detachment.

I wanted to give my love - and I can be incredibly loving - to a crazy man. — TimeLine

*Bullshit detector goes off*

When a client starts telling me how easy it is to work for him, how simple his project is, how nice he is etc. I know he wants to screw me - he either wants a very cheap price, or otherwise wants to abuse my labor. I tend to refuse to work with such clients. And when a girl tells me how incredibly loving she is, but how all guys she ever dated were such pricks, I instantly know that she's looking to abuse me. Only an abuser tries to "sell" him or herself. Great clients, those I love working for, tend to be the people who say here's what I'm looking for, take it or leave it. They don't need me, they come from a position of high value. I tend to learn the most from them, and also enjoy it the most. They also pay well - that's why they never have to negotiate.

authenticity — TimeLine

Your authenticity is nothing but a dream. There is no such authenticity. The only authenticity is before God, in the world people get together and form groups, ideally, to serve God and better the world. Not abandoning each other - loyalty - is merely an expedient allowing for success. Building a network of great friends everywhere is a good thing - it really allows you to do much good in the world.

And I don't think you understand what loyalty means. Loyalty means not abandoning the other even if they are pricks once you have made that commitment.

Are you going to tell me that hearing a disagreeable joke was not part of the scenario of potential victims which you had in mind? — Sapientia

I am going to tell you that any offence they took from the joke is not the harm to which the para refers. It is the subsequent loss of their job when they adopt the practice of offensive 'banter' themselves. I presume you would agree that loss of one's job is generally a greater harm than being offended by a joke. There is nothing pedantic about this. The criticism was based on a complete failure to comprehend what the paragraph said.