They found zero evidence of paedophilic incest for the same reason they found no collusion, Bob.

I guess that's where we differ.

I find it funny precisely because such things really happen.

In a world where no such cruelty exists, I think this kind of material would then become empty and pointless. Comedy thrives on the defiance of our misery.

I dare say it would get less of a laugh in Sweden for this very reason.

I'm clearly in the minority here, but then I suspect few people have developed the same sense of cynical detachment I have (working with the severely mentally I'll and dieing will do that to you).

The humour is definitely there, I guess you just need a suitably fucked up perspective to appreciate it.

Out of curiosity, did you find Jim's old bit about the child getting shot when he was in Iraq funny? I might suggest that is an even more cruel and fucked up situation than the subject matter being discussed here.

Would that only become funny when children are no longer victims of wars? Or is it funny precisely because of the incomprehensible cruelty and misfortune underlying it?

Perhaps you have an easier time detaching yourself from something that isn't as likely to happen to you? This seems reasonable, but I don't see how it precludes such material from being funny, only more challenging for one to engage with. (and thus more powerful if one can do so)

To bring in a thread from another reply "And this is the brilliance of Louis -- that he lays bare the humanity of even pedophiles. The truth of pedophiles."

In what sense is Jim not doing the same thing here? He is flippantly exploring Cosby's desire to victimise women, we all have desires and sometimes act on those impulses when we shouldn't.
Rape is an extreme example, but the thought process is ultimately the same thing writ large. "I want a thing I can't have, but I'm doing it anyway".
I might argue he is laying bare the universal human condition in just the same way, albeit with something closer to home for most people than paedophilia.

Presumably it's the other thread that's proving challenging, i.e. the masochistic idea of enjoying ones abuse? And again, there is something deeply fucked up at the heat of the human condition here. Deriving pleasure from victim hood, or having messed up priorities about fame and opportunity.
Stockholm syndrome, abused partners loving their spouses, groupies allowing themselves to be abused just to be near their idols.

We are really that fucked up as a species sometimes, cognitive dissonance is almost a way of life for most of us in our own little ways. It's clearly a deeply risque subject, but there is something dark at the core of the human condition there none the less.

The actual victims don't need to have the kind of mixed up priorities Jim is alluding to, we only have to recognise that we posses the capacity for that dissonance ourselves. (The joke being at the expense of our own inherent hypocrisies, not specific victims)

The only big difference I can really see is that child rape is much rarer than the kind being discussed here. (and thus I suppose easier for most to detach themselves from)

Is it really any less horrific? Surely if anything it is far more terrible for most victims and usually seems to cause more damage to their lives.

How does Louis's material on Child rape remain funny in a world where children are raped, yet Jim's material about women being raped only become funny in a world where they do not get raped?

Paedophiles have a culture too. They form groups, exchange materials, praise each others work etc. etc. Not to mention grooming rings and other such reprehensible things.

I understand that a particular subject can strike too close to home, but for me that was my failing to rise above my own fears and traumas. When I finally got to a place where I could laugh at my own victim hood, it was one of the most liberating experiences of my life. (Don't get me wrong, that shit never completely goes away)

I figure it's the difference between empathetic and non-empathetic humour. Laughing with someone, as opposed to laughing at them. Jefferies shtick is non-empathetic. Getting angry at things and people. So when he "jokes" about rape victims, he's laughing AT them. Otherwise, when he's joking about people we don't like, we're ok with it, because we're all a bit narcissistic. When he aims at people we have empathy for, it falls flat.

@ChaosEngine mentioned Louis CK's SNL paedophile bit. That, even with it's dark and sick subject matter, is empathetic. He's causing us to laugh WITH the paedophile, not AT them. We're laughing at ourselves. He's bringing us, kicking and screaming, to the view the paedophile is merely ill, not evil.

(I don't think paedophiles are merely ill, I think like cancer, they should be bombarded with chemicals and radiation until they disappear. But that's just me.)

Completely agree.

CONVICTED PAEDOPHILE PLUNGES TO DEATH IN FAULTY GUARDRAIL SCANDAL

Interesting parallel above

There's a big point being missed by people. Transgender people already use bathrooms alongside children. Paedophiles already use bathrooms alongside children. Even if one accepts the above as a problem, what does playing musical bathrooms accomplish? We swap sons at risk for daughters at risk, and vice versa? It's nonsense.

If they do that, I hope they amend a brain treatment for convicted paedophiles that includes high velocity injections of 123-147 grain Spitzer shaped lead.

Presumably the idea is we all love racists and paedophiles so much we don't think they should have to work for a living.

Not true, and that's why I posted the actual definition, rather than my personal feeling on what the word means. Then we can all start from the ACTUAL definition(s) rather than just making some up and arguing about it.

Your second paragraph/sentence makes no sense at all to me, and sounds like a disjointed red herring/straw man/bad attempt at creating a false argument you can shoot down....but it's so all over the place it's unfollowable.

You continue to confuse feminism with Feminism, and also continue to paint all Feminists in the worst possible light based on a few overboard examples rather than describing the normal, average Feminist.
For instance, many Feminists see pornography and prostitution as empowering and taking control of their own sexuality, and it was actually prudish anti-feminist men who tried to censor it in the courts.

In fact, there ARE many people in the civilized world who still think women don't deserve the same rights as men in many areas, and insist they are unable to perform tasks men can perform, must be coddled and subservient, and are lesser beings based purely on gender, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It's only because of this continuing misunderstanding on your part that you claim anyone said anything like "The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank... "...you are again confusing feminist with Feminist, and using the wrong one. We don't have Feminist advocacy to thank, we do however have feminist advocacy to thank for the advancements in women's rights...it's what the word means.


It doesn't sound at all like you 'appreciate the attempt at consensus building', or even understood my point, since you continue to conflate feminism with Feminism. I can't be certain, but it seems you are doing that intentionally in order to argue a moot point.



EDIT:sorry, I thought I quoted you @gorillaman, so I'll cut and paste....

gorillaman said:
Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Bob, it's been said a million times: you don't get your morality from your religion. If you did, there are all sorts of immoral acts that the Bible advocates (that you no doubt find repellent) that you would think is OK. The very fact that you have a conscience that tells you that slavery is wrong, even when you read it endorsed in both Old and New Testaments, should be enough to prove it. But I'm sure you'll find some way to wiggle out of that.

And why do you constantly equate gay people with paedophiles? Nobody is advocating in favour of child molestation. Consent is everything. 12 year olds cannot cannot give consent (neither can animals) so your bringing up the "born this way" argument is a red herring. 12 year olds were getting married 150 years ago? We know better now.

Firstly, i don't remember seeing an american referendum on gay marriage, so i don't know what makes you think your "WE" decided anything.

But did i really just see this troglodyte compare consensual same-sex relationships to paedophilia - child rape - like there was no difference?

You are fucking sick in the head - genuinely disturbing and offensive homophobic point of view. This is not the 1930s.

Is this allowed on the sift? Imagine a gay person reading this... and being told they are morally equal to paedophiles? Being told that this community tolerates people who compares them so? Surely this is an offensive and inflammatory insult. I feel as though choggie has been banned for less in the past. I'm disgusted.

Idk. Phelps et al took homophobia to a whole new level. It's easy to rail against such a comic book villain. Disagreeing with Phelps, even on his stance on homosexuality, doesn't necessarily mean you still don't have a mostly negative attitude towards homosexuality. I'm thinking of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" crowd. I think Huckabee and his ilk fit into this sort of "homophobia lite". They dress their bigotry up in platitudes and are likely to find support from some or the same people who might have decried Phelps. One might look towards Russia in the run up to Sochi. There you see the same sort of stance, where they enact policy that strips gays of their rights whilst insisting that its not borne of homophobia and is merely to protect children from paedophiles. I do not doubt their sincerity in this belief - most homophobes don't identify themselves as homophobes.

Ultimately I think these extreme undiluted views create an illusion of overwhelming support for gay rights. Perhaps the publicity raised a debate about homosexuality/phobia, but that debate still had to be fought and won by gay rights activists, not through us all uniting against a sort of shill.

I certainly hope things continue the way they have been. Still, there are parts of the world which seem to be regressing in this regard (see Russia again -.-). I have a feeling that rallying against any minority group is always going to be an effective political tactic, especially if it's done under the guise of protecting children from sexual abuse or preserving "family values".

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Brass-Eye-Paedophile-Interrogated

Brass Eye - Paedophile Interrogated has been added as a related post - related requested by alien_concept.