It wasn't a social setting with friends, she was after-dinner speaker at a Rugby Club, paid to do it because as a member of parliament she has profile.
by KieranFrost
A joke, told in a social setting, to entertain, to amuse friends is BY DEFINITION a light-hearted joke. Her aim wasn't to stun or shock, but amuse. That has to be light-hearted.
If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for all simply doesn't stand up as an approach to morality. It is wrong for me to shoot you, it is not wrong for a soldier to shoot someone whilst defending his country.
What a beautifully absurd idea! No, if it's wrong for one, it's wrong for all... regardless of how others view it. Also, that comment in itself is racists and discriminating against any white person. But wait, he can't be racist, he's black!
Without rehashing the 'Politics of humour' thread ... superiority humour functions to make the teller and the audience feel better about themselves at someone else's expense. In this manner it promotes bigotry, hatred and prejudice. However, if the teller is also the target (Chris Rock, Woody Allen etc) the ideology of the joke is altered.
Saying to a white person it is wrong to tell racist jokes about black people is not racist in the slightest, because the same morality functions in reverse. There is no prejudice there.
We haven't got off the point at all. We are just disagreeing with you.
It seems everyone has TOTALLY got off the point (including myself). I merely feel she was sacked over a non-intentionally offencive joke... a joke for crying out loud. What's next, eating a candy bar in an offencive manner will get you fired?
The joke is inherently offensive. The punchline works on the following principle ... pakistani's are all over here because our immigration laws are lax, and there are so many of them that they are essentially worhtless and so it is all right to kill them by throwing them off a train.
How would you offend someone by eating a chocolate bar?