Police investigating Sargon's rape comments about Labour MP - Polidicks

Here it is again. 'It's just a joke' Leaving aside everything else for a moment, I still want to understand this joke. I have no idea what part makes it a joke and not just a known sexist pissboy showing off his true colors and being a sexist pissboy I'm actually legitimately looking for explanations here. Someone explain this kind of comedy to me. I have no idea what part I'm supposed to be laughing at or why and I want to know

If you want to make offensive jokes then you need to make sure that there's enough context so that just about everyone understands that you don't honestly mean the things you are saying, like in a comedy club, or when you're being specifically requested to do so. You might even get away with it if you're known to be a provocateur that is never serious. But when you're aiming to be a politician then you have to assume that people will take you for your word.

You're too ugly for me to rape =/= saying you wouldn't rape someone

It looks like he was pushing back on accusations of being a rapist or apologist that were supposedly bizarre because the tweet was about not-raping, leading to him portraying the outcry as about pressure to change course and support rape in this latest video.

As a preface, this is not directed at JaffaOrange here. Their post is more serving as a jumping off point for some general soapboxing This is another one of those things that just bugs me. This notion that freedom of speech means you are allowed to say anything, anywhere, anytime, no matter how vile or inappropriate, totally consequence free, regardless of the context, and if anyone objects they're just a thin skinned snowflake buzzword buzzword buzzword But that is demonstrably, observably just plain not how reality works. That may fly when you're still fifteen and dumb as a sack of hammers with an awful lot of learning left to do, but it just plain doesn't fly when you're over twenty and a fully contributing member of society and ought to bloody well know better by now that you are an adult and you are ultimately responsible for anything and everything you say and do. Trying to shift the blame to other people for just not understanding it is trying to pretend like you're still fifteen And I totally get it! It was fun to be fifteen and feel like nothing you said or did mattered! But one of the most terrifying things about growing up is that it did. There's no opt out process for the human experience. Everything you say and do has some kind of an impact somewhere, somehow. Speech is an action in and of itself, and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And it's your personal responsibility as a grown ass adult to understand and be aware of this Whether or not the the consequences for what you did are disproportionate or unfair, it was still your job to be aware of them, and judge for yourself whether or not you should have done it. And in this instance? This instance where a man running for a political office? A position of power? The sort of thing where consequences for actions regularly are and should be greater than for the average Joe Racist Joke because that's how accountability works? Carl shoulda fuckin' known better than to be shooting off his mouth like he's still on 4chin and was gonna get asspats for being so ~edgy and politically incorrect~, and he absolutely should be getting his dumb ass investigated by the police. Because that is the kind of shit that happens when you are a grown ass adult seeking a position of power. The consequences of your actions scale up and down with the context There is this bizarre notion that context just doesn't matter that much, and actions should have the same consequence or lack thereof, but that is not how any of this works. Just about every legal system in the world operates heavily on context. It's one of the oldest concepts in human society. It's why we have things like courts and judges and investigations to begin with. Investigations determine and expand the context, courts are a place to further examine and discuess the context, judges exist to take the context into account and judge accordingly. Jurors are there to witness the context and delve further into the nuance of it. These are founding pillars of the concept of justice. The earliest legal systems in the world were a man hearing two sides and judging, from the context, how to resolve a dispute Nobody is calling the police on your mate Dave down the pub for making inappropriate jokes on a Sunday night. Dave's being a prat, but Dave's not about to be investigated or arrested for being a prat. Mostly because Dave is not running for a political office. Dave is a web designer for a small startup company whose greatest ambition is to be entirely undefeatable at pub trivia Carl is not your mate Dave down the fucking pub. He's an influential figure within the far right sphere who has substantially greater ambitions than being a trivia king and is currently seeking out a position of power where he will be able to have a direct and measurable influence over the lives over a significant number of people. He is pursuing a profession that is literally built on people being able to take you at your word and in which the things you say matter immensely Does that not warrant taking the things he says just a little bit more seriously? Does that additional context really, actually, genuinely not matter? Is this investigation really his right to free speech being infringed or reduced, or is this a person seeking out a position of power being held accountable for the things they say and do? Isn't that the sort of thing we want? For politicians to be accountable for their bullshit? Is Carl not, by way of his actively pursuing a political office, a politician, who should be held accountable for the things he says and does? Does the additional context just not matter at all? If it doesn't, and this is a really important one, why not? That's some useful additional context but I'm not sure it does much to address my central confusion over the alleged joke, which I've already gone over pretty thoroughly further up the thread

"In a video posted on YouTube late last month, he said: “There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I’ve been in a lot of trouble for my hardline stance of not even raping her. “I suppose with enough pressure I might cave. But let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”" This isn't a joke. Freeze peach doesn't cover this even if this were in the USA. You can get away with these shenanigans on the internet but that's it. You don't get to be in a role in politics and say this kind of shit about your peers in the real world. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence. And if that doesn't convince you, do any amount of research on sargon and what he stands for and see if you still back him. Free speech covers protest and government supression of it's citizens. Not this petty bullshit that he can get away with on youtube in the name of "anti-sjws." Fuck sargon and fuck youtube "critics"

Let me tell you about jokes and why "its just a joke" is what only a gigantic pussy would do. More than most people here I love dark and wry humor. I've become increasingly nihilistic as I've aged, and its shown in my humor, which was already extremely wry before I even left middle school. This includes laughing at the expense of people who act like absolute weirdo's or spazzoids, and its even more funny when everyone in the room is a dick. It's become enjoyable to laugh at this and I'm not going to feel ashamed about it, because why should I feel bad for personal taste. No, I don't just laugh at anyone or anything, I know how to take things seriously and I can be a very adult person and have real discussions. But am I going to hide behind "Its just a joke?", no, that's retarded. If you can't defend making the joke without saying "its just a joke" then don't make it. Context is important, and topics are either all okay or none of it is. If you place a shot poorly you should swallow your ego and apologize, a bad jokes a bad joke and that is that. You don't get to just straight up bully someone just because you think its funny. A joke directly pointed towards someone needs to at least make a point about the way someone is acting, or make the situation seem very ridiculous in light of it. It should also at LEAST be well told and actually sound like a joke. Making someone angry over it is a huge bonus, but your target should at least obviously have it coming. Carls joke, it had the structure of a joke but his voice and tone, as well as how its said in general doesn't make it sound like a joke, it just sounds like a weird, creepy and unneeded statement, there was just no point in saying it at all. He's not saying this to be a funny comedian that wants to own the idiot libtards with epic zingers either, and I would know, because I know asshole humor. He's saying this stuff because his ass knows it'll get people mad. Not only that, but because of the context, it sounds more serious and threatening than a mere joke should sound. He should have been presenting arguments instead, like an actual politician does. You see, the big thing about these kinds of jokes is that you need the right time and place. Making an edgy joke is hilarious and makes you a superior person than everyone around you, yeah, however the entire point of a joke is that its supposed to be funny, which means the people you're telling it to should be adjusted to laugh at it. You need to adjust your jokes to be appropriate for where you're standing. If it just comes off as unfunny and attacking people around you, you fucked up. When you're at a gay bar, making 'so a faggot walks off a cliff' joke just makes you look like a psycho, and you shouldn't be making them. You don't just get a free pass by saying "its just a joke". It's going to offend people and they should be offended by it, because you're an idiot for making that joke and there's no means of even justifying yourself. If you want to make that joke, you're going to have to do it around people that will laugh at it. In fact, if its something like that, you should really be making it never, it's just straight up a weird and homophobic thing to say. "Lol someones triggered" is exactly the type of thing idiots like Carl say, it's just a longer version of brainless newfag responses like "lol u mad". Carl is desperate as ever to have a crowd of offended morons because his career entirely depends on it. Without people being offended over """"NOTHING"""" he doesn't have a channel. He wants very badly to feel like this big important figure but he's simply too braindead to understand that people are actually just laughing at him, not with him. Carl is a self-important idiot that wants to be more than he can be. He should apply for a waiter position applebee's and stop trying to play dress-up and stop pretending he's a politician. Anyone who is a genuine fan of Carl is a fucking moron and you deserve to be made mocked for thinking that this mushmouth illiterate waterhead has valuable opinions.

Imagine a co-worker 'joking' about your "not-rape", making it a huge point of contention, choosing it as a hill to die on. Then saying he might do it if he's pushed over the line. Offensive doesn't fucking cut it, it's the kind of thing that'd have you googling the requirements for a restraining order. If you think "joke!!" is some sort of legal kryptonite here, you're beyond disingenuous.

The thing that some of you are missing is that the "joke" is an afterthought. He saw a female MP talking about other women receiving threats online and immediately categorized her as a malicious SJW feminist in a position of power, and wanted to call her a liar and tell her to shut up. The "joke" is how it came out, he probably thought something offensive yet sarcastic would be infallible.

Moreover still Carl here is an MP hopeful, if elected then his words become more than "just words" he becomes the voice of his constituency. Imagine if Sadiq Kahn said "people shouldn't even bother throwing a shoe at you... Actually maybe if it was old, worn out and covered in dogshit." there would be an uproar. Once you want to go into politics you are accountable for the shit you say.

An exactly well worded point Some jokes are worded like jokes, but they're not intended to be jokes. They're not designed to be even slightly funny, even to people that like that kind of humor. imagine then defending it by going "its just a joke, stop being so triggered" That's the kind of absolute fucking brainling a manlet like Carl is. He's a socially retarded confrontational douchebag. Every time he talks to someone who doesn't strictly lick his toes he does shit like this.

That's a pretty nice sphincter you have there. It'd shame if something were to happen to it. I'm not making any threats, just speculating on possible misfortunes is all.

I really don't get how people think joking about you raping someone is somehow "A joke". The only time that shit would be acceptable, is if the person who says the fucked up rape shit gets the slapstick comedy treatment as a "Fuck You" for saying that. Like that's the only way i can see that work in a comedic sense. Is if the person saying that fucked up joke gets bitch slapped by Karma. Meanwhile. The literal humor of this joke, is making fun of a person getting raped. And the "I wouldn't even rape you" is literally "You're so pathetic, i wouldn't even rape you". Like again, the only time i can see that line "I wouldn't even rape you" work. Is if it was some serial killer or villain in a movie or show. And that only works in a non-comedic sense, yet people find that funny...

I wouldn't even lick that sphincter Well maybe with enough pressure, but there aren't enough beers in the world

You're right, you're not making threats, and misfortune has already befallen my asshole. I was responding to someone saying he was threatening to rape her specifically, not the morality of his actions. He did not threaten to rape her. Him constantly bringing up how he won't rape her to be deliberately antagonistic could potentially constitute harrassment, but he did not make any actual threats.

also a part of me is wondering that the people who find these """jokes""" funny, probably don't get out much. Or have extreme anti-social behavior.

I'm still waitin' on an explanation on how it's actually a joke and not just a sexist pissboy backpedaling on saying sexist pissboy shit and trying to act the victim and play it off like it's those big mean sjubya snowflakes just not understanding his ~hip and edgy humor~ because they're too sensitive or something At the risk of sounding like a broken record: I really wanna understand this joke and I have no idea why nobody wants to explain it to me

I do really love that people will still fucking throw themselves on Sargon's sword and then wonder why everyone thinks they're a complete and utter shit for siding with someone that's said something so fucking reprehensible. Like it or lump it you're judged by who you're willing to defend and stand beside, cupcake, and that's how the fucking real world is. if you think that's divisionist then welcome to politics, go get your coat.

Jokes are not meant to be taken seriously and to be good jokes they are supposed to be funny. It's quite obvious that none of what he said in that video was meant to be taken seriously, however because what he said wasn't funny that makes it a shitty joke. Since it was directed at another person, and about a topic that's generally considered shitty to joke about, him making a shitty joke about a subject you generally shouldn't joke about makes him a shitty person. It was also deliberately crafted to be antagonistic, and since he's been making multiple, completely unsolicited, near-constant antagonistic references to this whole controversy, which has his actions toward another person as the focus, what he's doing could constitute harassment. So to clarify on my opinion of this: he is a shitty person for doing this, is very likely harassing this woman, but he did not actually threaten to rape her. Even this most recent shitty joke, when you look at it, places the "threshold of rape" at a level that is impossible to achieve, meaning he's saying he wouldn't rape her, but he's doing it in a way that is immensely shitty and deliberately meant to antagonize people into accusing him of threatening to rape her, probably so that he can use that controversy in his Youtube videos about how he's being "slandered" by "smear merchants."

I feel as if you shouldn't be making rape jokes towards anyone in general, but I guess that makes me a dang SJW or something

And that's what I needed to see to know exactly what your motives here are. What makes you any better than Tudd at this point?

I didn't ask for an explanation of jokes in general, I asked for an explanation of this joke. This specific class of humor Regardless of whether or not it was funny, it seems clear to me from the context of this conversation that it was in some way supposed so be funny. Not just that it was something not meant to be taken seriously(Which is a pack of questions all its own, mind), someone was obviously, from what I can glean from this conversation so far, supposed to derive humor from it somehow. I do not know how, and I thought I had outlined the central sources of my confusion pretty clearly On top of all that I'm increasingly suspicious of things that are 'obviously not meant to be taken seriously' because we live in a time of cryptofascists, where everything is a joke until it isn't. 'Gas the jews' is just a joke until you have literal swastika wearing Nazis marching in the streets chanting like a goddamn cult and waving torches. The alleged humor is used as a cover for holding vile beliefs and spreading them under the pretense of just being ~edgy and politically correct~ until you find someone who does take it seriously in just the right way. Which is to say, agreeing with it "Haha it's just a joke but it's a little true tho" So you can hopefully understand why I'm just a bit fucking suspy about this notion that this is obviously not meant to be taken seriously, and why I need an explanation of how this is a joke and what the joke actually is Or, to loop back around the horn again And just to get that full loop, I must again emphasize that this isn't some kind of ebig takedown post to Win The Argument. I am genuinely asking these questions. They are meant to be taken 100% seriously as a request for information I'm fully willing to agree that it was a shitty joke, but even a shitty joke is supposed to be funny. Regardless of whether or not they are, there's usually a reason they they are supposed to be funny And that's where I'm getting tripped up. I don't know what parts of this joke were supposed to be funny. I don't know the reasons it was supposed to be funny I honestly have no idea how many more ways I can say Explain The Joke To me

We live in generation snowflake

And I understand that I am again being very intense! And I do sincerely apologize! If you don't actually know why the joke is supposed to be funny, I'm willing to accept that as an answer, too! It's unfair of me to expect someone to have all the answers I seek, you just seem like a solid potential source of those because you seem to be more familiar with Cargon and his sort of crowd

The ~anti PC sjw~ crowd always come across as the most socially stunted idiots possible. Carlgon of Swindon is the kind of guy who would crack a disgustingly loud eggy fart at the dining table at a family gathering, and respond with "WHAT'S NEXT MOTHER??? PRISON TIME FOR BURPING?!!!!" when he got a negative response. You aren't entitled to walk around acting like a complete prick with zero consequences. There's such a thing as an inappropriate moment or context to spout your vapid opinions and offensive remarks. He claims not to give a shit if he offends people, but he sure does whinge whenever someone tells him to fuck off. Welcome to the real world- where a modicum of common courtesy is generally expected of adults. These people need to stop acting like entitled fucking children.

Yeah, they're called the alt right

Bear in mind the following is an explanation of why one could possibly find humour in this, not me saying I agree with it: Some people derive humour from the belittlement or misfortune of others. Often times, these people will find it funny to insult someone they think is a terrible person. You see people insult Trump all the time and laugh about it because they think he's a terrible person and derive pleasure from degrading him. I use this as an example so you can see how someone can arrive to a mindset where insulting a person is humourous, and that arriving at this mindset is more common and easy to do than one might think. All it requires to get to the point of beginning to find insults about someone funny is a lack of respect for that person. The less respect for a person you have, and the more you hate them, the more likely it is that you will find immensely offensive insults towards them funny. Sargon said what he did at first because the female MP in question was insulting male suicide victims, which is a shitty thing to do. Therefore, he and his supporters then think it's okay now to insult this woman and derive humour from degrading her because they view her as a shitty person and have no respect for her, and probably also hate her. The people who would find this funny probably hate this woman a fair bit, since rape jokes are some of the worst, most insulting ones to make. So hopefully this explains a bit how someone could get to a point where they find insulting and degrading another human being funny.

No. Stop reading Breitbart.

Never have

Who the fuck made you a mod?