Rodeo Announcer's joke not funny

[Backroads]

Actually people use shock humor all the time. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that everyone who tells a dead baby joke is really in favor of throwing deceased infants into blenders or what have you, and a fair amount of holocaust jokes are told by people who don't truly and honestly support of the state eradication of the Jews. I'm not sure this case is a good example of shock humor but people can tell jokes without necessarily being in support of it's precepts.

And of course as John says, people will play a crowd, and that's something that transcends shock humor. I doubt (but that's just based on my own feelings) that despite all the stand up routines about their wives and girlfriends that male comedians think they're all shallow, stupid, nags. Some people go too far in search of the laugh, it's usually noticed when they overreach their audience. Surprisingly entertainers entertain, and sometimes that means they're playing to their audience and tell them what figure they'll find funny. It is possible (I don't know how probable) the guy said it because he figured it'd be a hit with a (presumably) conservative crowd.

I guess I was just extremely offended by what this guy did, and, for the record, I'm just as offended by people that tell dead baby and Holocaust jokes. I don't find those funny, but offensive, mean-spirited, tactless, and uncouth.

Is it wrong of me to think that way? I'm still furious at this guy and I think he should have a better sense of his audience.

But I do see your point and I will lay off the guy though I still believe he should apologize.

Is that John's point?

Is it? I felt like I was being told what the guy did was okay because I couldn't prove it was mean-spirited.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Backroads

[CaptainEm]

Actually people use shock humor all the time. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that everyone who tells a dead baby joke is really in favor of throwing deceased infants into blenders or what have you, and a fair amount of holocaust jokes are told by people who don't truly and honestly support of the state eradication of the Jews. I'm not sure this case is a good example of shock humor but people can tell jokes without necessarily being in support of it's precepts.

And of course as John says, people will play a crowd, and that's something that transcends shock humor. I doubt (but that's just based on my own feelings) that despite all the stand up routines about their wives and girlfriends that male comedians think they're all shallow, stupid, nags. Some people go too far in search of the laugh, it's usually noticed when they overreach their audience. Surprisingly entertainers entertain, and sometimes that means they're playing to their audience and tell them what figure they'll find funny. It is possible (I don't know how probable) the guy said it because he figured it'd be a hit with a (presumably) conservative crowd.

Actually, comedians get their humor from life experience, quite often. Jests at their lady friends usually derive from arguments and bad feelings that may or may not be resolved. You can say what you want about it, but the end result is that it's tasteless and I'm sure the wives/girlfriends do not appreciate all of the jokes at their expenses.

Backroads is right: Whatever a person has said has to come from somewhere inside of them. They might have to play the audience, but they have made a conscious decision to say what they say and probably said it not just to make people laugh but because they are on the audience's side with it.

I doubt the announcer is ready to go slaughter illegal aliens, but what he said was in extremely poor taste and he should have thought better.

[prisonchaplain]

From my reading of the article, the announcer uses this joke at every venue, and apparently has gotten a good response. So, he's surely thought it through. After two or three times, you pretty much have to own what you say, no?

[Dravin]

I guess I was just extremely offended by what this guy did, and, for the record, I'm just as offended by people that tell dead baby and Holocaust jokes. I don't find those funny, but offensive, mean-spirited, tactless, and uncouth.

The main point is not if the jokes are offensive or not but that people tell jokes without it being some great insight into their personal politics or stand on what policies they would enact if they were king of the world. It's an issue of suspicions and conclusions versus knowledge.

Personally I don't have much issue with thinking the guy's joke was a tell of what lays beneath, I just agree with John that people do say things that aren't necessarily indicative of their inner self in quite the way you were implying. I'm not saying it is better that one tell jokes at the KKK gathering because you want laughs instead of because you deeply believe all non-whites are inferior, but what's going on under the hood for the two scenarios is different.

I'm still furious at this guy and I think he should have a better sense of his audience.

Well a better sense of his audience means he waits to tell the joke until only those who find it funny are present. Not that he doesn't tell the joke.

Is it? I felt like I was being told what the guy did was okay because I couldn't prove it was mean-spirited.

I read it as a comment that just because someone made a joke doesn't mean they stand behind any possible concepts that may come attached to it. So basically, he's not telling you to not be offended, he's just pointing out that you don't actually know as much about what is going on in the guy's head as you seem think.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Dravin

[CaptainEm]

If he is being paid and it's in their rules of such then yes he free to say it, but be prepared for the consequnces to follow.

Yes, technically he can say whatever he wants, even if its outside of their rules. But clearly he is getting bad press for it.

[Dravin]

From my reading of the article, the announcer uses this joke at every venue, and apparently has gotten a good response. So, he's surely thought it through. After two or three times, you pretty much have to own what you say, no?

One owns what one says the first time they say it (baring some excuses for slips of the tongue, sometimes the brain does get scrambled) whether it's a deeply held belief or simply good material. Make no mistake, pandering to the crowd doesn't give one a free pass to say whatever.

[CaptainEm]

The main point is not if the jokes are offensive or not but that people tell jokes without it being some great insight into their personal politics or stand on what policies they would enact if they were king of the world. It's an issue of suspicions and conclusions versus knowledge.

Yet I can't help but feel suspicious of people who say stuff like that. It may not be a fully accurate sign of how an individual thinks and views the world, but I would take it as a half-decent example of how they treat people.

[Backroads]

The main point is not if the jokes are offensive or not but that people tell jokes without it being some great insight into their personal politics or stand on what policies they would enact if they were king of the world. It's an issue of suspicions and conclusions versus knowledge.

Personally I don't have much issue with thinking the guy's joke was a tell of what lays beneath, I just agree with John that people do say things that aren't necessarily indicative of their inner self in quite the way you were implying. I'm not saying it is better that one tell jokes at the KKK gathering because you want laughs instead of because you deeply believe all non-whites are inferior, but what's going on under the hood for the two scenarios is different.

Yes, I was unfairly suspicious. That gives the man no right to assume everyone will assume the best of him. He says stuff like that, I will probably take offense and wonder why he said it.

I read it as a comment that just because someone made a joke doesn't mean they stand behind any possible concepts that may come attached to it. So basically, he's not telling you to not be offended, he's just pointing out that you don't actually know as much about what is going on in the guy's head as you seem think.

I'll go with that. I will try hard not to offended by what the announcer said.

Yet I can't help but feel suspicious of people who say stuff like that. It may not be a fully accurate sign of how an individual thinks and views the world, but I would take it as a half-decent example of how they treat people.

I guess this is what I've gotten all hung-up on.

[CaptainEm]

I guess this is what I've gotten all hung-up on.

And I don't blame you, but you being so upset at this guy who possibly realizes and feels bad about the inappropriateness of his comment isn't in the forgiveness program. Feel free to be mad about what he said (and for all I know you're right, he deep downs means it, in fact I'm inclined to think so) but let him go.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Would you mind expanding on this statement? I'd really like to know what you mean by it.

It's quite simple. Any potential negative consequences brought about by illegal immigrants residing in America would not have happened if we actually enforced our laws. This includes the potential spread of disease, increased violent and overall crime due to drug running by illegals, etc. It should be pretty obvious that no one was saying all illegal immigrants cause these problems, only that had our laws actually been followed and enforced that they wouldn't have taken place because the illegals that do cause these problems wouldn't be in the country to perpetrate the crime or spread the disease. If a store does not order apples and orders a shipment of oranges, you can't bite into a moldy apple sold at that store if only oranges are shipped. It does not follow that all apples are moldy or that all oranges are not moldy.

Edited July 6, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[Mahone]

Yes I would still support his right to say Death to America though I don't subscribe and wouldn't like it either.

Would you not allow Thomas Paine to have freedom of speech? How about some of the teachings of Christ running contrary to the Pharisees and considering his words blasphemy.

Here's a Thomas Paine quote:

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. "

You would deny one of more prolific Revolutionary orators to be quiet? Of course not, but I bet you would ignore his talk. This was done later after the war, but people just ignored him and he eventually faded away because they gave no notice/credence to his words.

That's why our forefathers gave this right. Free speech has to be tolerated. It doesn't have to be accepted as truth.

The problem is, some people do accept it as truth. Talks involving some of the phrases I used ultimately ended up with 9/11 and 7/7. Some of those talks happened on American and British soil. I'm not saying this is the same as what happened in the OP, just that free speech isn't always just speech - it incites actions, which are a lot more harmful. Unfortunately freedom to essentially do as you wish in this regard has negative connotations. So yes, I don't think people should be allowed to say literally anything they want. Any extreme in one direction or the other is bad.

[john doe]

I suppose I don't, but why would anyone do a potentially offensive joke if they didn't believe in it? There are so many other ways this man could have "played the crowd". But he didn't. He said all the illegals should be stuck on a train. As a joke. No one is going to say such a joke unless they truly and honestly support it. If he had no feelings about it, he would have come up with something else. The joke idea would not even have crossed his mind.

Does the idea of "saying stuff to please a crowd" make it okay?

Am I really supposed to say "Oh, go ahead and tell offensive jokes because I can't prove you mean it?" And if he didn't mean it, he's tactless and an idiot.

Saying things for popularity's sake is a terrible thing when the wrong things are said and there is no justification for it. You said it, don't blame the desire to please the world.

I'm not defending him. I'm also not sure that anyone can really know what is in a person's heart based on a second-hand report of what they said. But based on the article, he knows his crowds, and the general type of people who generally attend rodeos in Utah County. As an announcer he probably says a lot of things that upon reflection he would like to take back. We all do, don't we?

[LittleWyvern]

It's quite simple. Any potential negative consequences brought about by illegal immigrants residing in America would not have happened if we actually enforced our laws. This includes the potential spread of disease, increased violent and overall crime due to drug running by illegals, etc. It should be pretty obvious that no one was saying all illegal immigrants cause these problems, only that had our laws actually been followed and enforced that they wouldn't have taken place because the illegals that do cause these problems wouldn't be in the country to perpetrate the crime or spread the disease. If a store does not order apples and orders a shipment of oranges, you can't bite into a moldy apple if only oranges are shipped. It does not follow that all apples are moldy or that all oranges are not moldy.

That argument assumes, though, that illegal immigrants are the sole and only cause of infectious diseases, drug related crime, violent crime, etc. Essentially you're saying that if there were no illegal immigrants there would be no drug related crime. Despite this being a silly argument, if this is the thinking of a lot of people this might explain at least partly the motives behind the rodeo announcer's comments.

[PrinceofLight2000]

That argument assumes, though, that illegal immigrants are the sole and only cause of infectious diseases, drug related crime, violent crime, etc. Essentially you're saying that if there were no illegal immigrants there would be no drug related crime. Despite this being a silly argument, if this is the thinking of a lot of people this might explain at least partly the motives behind the rodeo announcer's comments.

No, you are incorrect. You paid zero attention to the final line of my post and are taking parts of it out of context to draw a non-logical conclusion. Nothing in my post suggests that you can logically arrive to a conclusion where illegal immigrants are the only cause of crime or disease. I pointed that out numerous times.

The point I and Traveler were making was that illegal immigrants cannot POTENTIALLY contribute to these problems inside our borders if they respect the law and are outside of the country.

Edited July 6, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[prisonchaplain]

That argument assumes, though, that illegal immigrants are the sole and only cause of infectious diseases, drug related crime, violent crime, etc. Essentially you're saying that if there were no illegal immigrants there would be no drug related crime. Despite this being a silly argument, if this is the thinking of a lot of people this might explain at least partly the motives behind the rodeo announcer's comments.

I believe this is called the strawman fallacy. Debater recasts opponent's argument in absurd terms, and then easily destroys it. In this case, however, the restatement is wrong on the surface. The history of immigration in this country is one that includes checking for infectious diseases. Many would-be immigrants were denied entry because they were found to be sick. The INS did not for one instance suggest that immigrants were the sole cause of the diseases. Rather, they did not want anyone bringing in a new flare up, or adding to the spread of any sicknesses. Likewise, our posters simply brought up that illegal immigrants are not checked for diseases, and so they carry a risk.

[LittleWyvern]

My mistake, and apologies to the both of you. I've read some similar stories to the OP lately I'm having a hard time catching subtleties anymore.