456
8 March 2024
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
456 points (100.0% liked)
Cyanide and Happiness
4783 readers
133 users here now
Hello fellow Cyanide and Happiness fans!
About this community and how I post the comics… Many moons ago, I would ask my Dad to save the newspaper for me everyday so I could read my favorite comic strips. Of course these days you can read your favorite comics online instead of a newspaper, but I love the nostalgia of reading the daily comics. Anyway, one of my favorite current comics is Cyanide and Happiness and I will be posting the daily release from their website (https://explosm.net) and a an extra or two randoms.
Cyanide & Happiness (C&H) is a webcomic created by Rob DenBleyker, Kris Wilson, Dave McElfatrick and Matt Melvin. The comic has been running since 2005 and is published on the website explosm.net along with animated shorts in the same style. Matt Melvin left C&H in 2014, and several other people have contributed to the comic and to the animated shorts… Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide_%26_Happiness
Hope you enjoy and feel free to contribute to the community with art, media, cool stuff about the authors, tattoos, toys and anything else, as long it’s Cyanide and Happiness related!
Ps. Sub to all my comic strip communities…
Bloom County !bloomcounty@lemm.ee https://lemm.ee/c/bloomcounty
Calvin and Hobbes !calvinandhobbes@lemmy.world https://lemmy.world/c/calvinandhobbes
Cyanide and Happiness !cyanideandhappiness https://lemm.ee/c/cyanideandhappiness
Garfield !garfield@lemmy.world https://lemmy.world/c/garfield
The Far Side !thefarside@sh.itjust.works https://lemmy.world/c/thefarside@sh.itjust.works
Fine print: All comics I post are freely available online. In no way am I claiming ownership, copyright or anything else. This is a not for profit community, we just want to enjoy our comics, thank you.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The thing you seem to misunderstand is the difference between a joke, and the subject of a joke. The latter is of course not funny. But no children were harmed in the former.
"Ya know, the Nazi's had pieces of flair... They made the Jews wear them"
'jokes' about rape certainly harms rape victims by making it easier for society in general to dismiss their claims of suffering.
Just like back in the 50s to 70s where wife beating jokes were so normal they were said on family TV. In fact the ENTIRE premise of the Honeymooners TV show was about the implied threat of spouse abuse. Because it was considered 'normal' and joking about it was 'normal'.
No rape joke is funny, and harms rape victims by making light of their suffering.
I get what you're saying. But I also don't think it is as clear cut as what you're making it out to be. There has been cultural acceptance for things that shouldn't be acceptable at. That's still the case now. The nuances for jokes in this role, I'm sure are subject for more than one doctoral dissertation.
I also stand a little bit corrected, because I don't mean that all jokes are OK. I think however that all subjects, are. When the premise of the punchline depends on the controversial subject being OK, it fails at doing so, and I would agree with you.
For example, there is a huge difference between a joke that is funny because it predicates and reinforces a stereotype that "black people are X", vs a joke that makes fun of the stereotype itself that "black people are X". The latter is OK. Doesn't mean everyone should find it funny. But it can certainly serve to ridicule the stereotype itself.
Which brings me to this:
Why do you think all of them "makes light of their suffering"? I would argue that it depends entirely on the joke, the context, and the punchline itself. The joke in question in the comic here, does no such thing. The joke is the classic "set up a expectation => subvert it", and what it does, if anything, is bring attention to "rape happens", and "rapists exist". Awareness of that, is a good thing, no? Isn't it more harmful to make rape tabu, almost as if pretending it doesn't happen, and that rapists don't exist?
Which is why I'd like to argue the exact opposite of what you suggest. And this to say that comedy is an extremely important mechanism, if used right, to bring attention to problems that should be talked about. Especially uncomfortable subjects. It can educate, bring awareness, and challenge stereotypes or established societal constructs. All subjects are therefore OK. It doesn't mean all jokes are funny.
Tl;dr: context matters.
Because that is what rape victims have told me when they are forced to be exposed to rape 'jokes'.
Did... you simply just downvote my comment, not address anything in it, and answer the hypothetical question? Did you even read it? No one is "forcing" anyone here. If you don't understand a basic concept of human language and interaction... you won't be able to identify what the actual problems are, which undermines efforts to improve the situation. Your complaints would be rightfully ignored.
It's the same type of argument that suggests "Uncle Tom's Cabin" should be banned, because it "forces" people who experience systemic racism to be exposed to it in a literary work. Again. Context fucking matters. People who don't get that and complain, are either virtue signalling or attention seeking (or both), in either case, ignored to the benefit of all.
There is nothing meaningful to address in your comment, and it does not contribute to the discussion. You are trying to normalize a disgusting practice and all of those things deserve downvotes.
Your arguing that sometimes jokes about child rape are okay, and I disagree. In no circumstances, in no context are they ok. None.
There is literally no argument you can bring that will change my position on this.
And every argument you DO bring just convinces me more and more that your reasons for trying to justify this are deeply personal.
I don't know if you've actually read the book but it isn't a comedy, you are making a comparison between a serious examination of an abhorrent practice and people using the suffering of others to make people laugh.
If you really don't see the difference between the two then you have no business on my internet.
Imagine feeling so strongly about this, yet not understand why if anyone actually cared and listened to your opinion, it would make the very problem you want to address, worse. I'm not trying to convince you of anything either... I'm explaining the function of humour to address difficult to talk about topics. And you're going "no! No one should talk about it in any other way than in the seriousness of which it is" lalalacanthearyou. "... well, people simply don't talk about it then. Is that what you want?". lalala.
You do you.
Whether or not you want to be wrong about this, is entirely up to you. It has no effect on me. I'm just trying to help you out here. Seems it really it's of no interest to you, which means I'm just wasting my time. You might as well just move on. I certainly will. Have a good one.
It really is true that most of humanity is just unable to identify with the suffering of others unless they experience it themselves.
I don't wish it on anyone, not even to 'prove a point' but I'm pretty sure unless you are an absolute psychopath (which is possible) if you had a family member endure that horrific experience then maybe you wouldn't be surprised that people feel strongly about it.
But you haven't and you can't, so it's just another piece of edgy humor for you.
Must be nice to be so naive about the capacity some people have for inhumane abuse.
I think this is definitely true, but it doesn't just blanket apply to any joke that mentions these topics. Jokes where people "pretend" to say sexist or abusive ideas, but the joke is that "I'm actually a nice person, I obviously don't really mean this" (eg "no means yes, and yes means harder, amirite guys ;-)" or "if there's grass on the wicket, it's ready for cricket, lol"), can definitely be harmful even if not many that way. It normalises those attitudes, and can make abusers feel like they have more support from society than they really do. But in this comic the character comes across as a psychopath, proudly announcing something that is clearly wrong, and the other one calls the police. I don't feel like anyone is getting some message that actually it's totally normal to have sex with ten year olds...
It doesn't matter that the representation is bad.
American History X is a very anti-nazi movie, portraying the main character's growing realization of how horrible a person he used to be.
Yet neonazis of every nation consider that movie a rallying cry, again despite explicitly portraying the main character's past as abhorrent and brutal. Or maybe because of it.
So while you may THINK portraying the pedophile as a psychopath may be good story and representation, a portion of people 'laughing' about it are because they are pedophiles and they enjoy the representation regardless of the context.