Humour Bypasses and The Perpetually Offended

[Memphis]

We Brits have always been known for our sense of humour.

 

Monty Python, Only Fools and Horses, Morcambe and Wise, Bernard Manning etc etc.

 

Since when did we become a nation of people who fail to see the funny side of anything. It's almost as if people go out of their way to find offence where there was none intended.

 

Two things have caught my eye today.

 

This story in The Huffington Post

 

And these posts from the Adam Yates thread:

 

Apparently he only signed for them on the premise that they let him wear no.2

 

Sad lack of wit and disrespect to one of the most loyal players we have had in the last 10 years.

 

Where has people's ability to laugh gone?

[Yukon]

Bernard Manning? Wow

[Memphis]

Bernard Manning? Wow

 

:D

[Lornelounger]

Calm down now eh son, calm down, eh, eh, eh?

We are also known for our sarcasm (some say it is the lowest form of wit, but I'm quite short, so thats fine).

I'm guessing the comment re Yates and wearing number 2 was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Can't guarantee it, but no need to attack DavidatPreston just for the sake of it.

And Bernard Manning? Really? That fat sexist racist was about as funny as projectile vomiting.

Thousands of funnier people - Ronnie Barker, Lee Mack, Peter Kay, Lee Evans…

But there I go, finding offence where none was intended…..

[Memphis]

 

For clarity, I'm not attacking D@P, just making a general point.

[smithie]

I'd say about 5% of Manning's act was racist - the rest was ageist, sizeist, sexist, Scousist, working mens' club stuff. More than a few of his gags took the mickey out of himself.

 

He was taken to task about his racist gags in his later years, famously on one occasion by Esther Rantzen. It's ironic that she was outraged by unpleasant jokes but kept schtum about Jimmy Savile.

 

He certainly wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but it's unfair to overplay his racist gags when they were by no means his only gags.

[davidatpreston]

 

For clarity, I'm not attacking D@P, just making a general point.

 

Fair enough - I certainly didn't take it as an attack, unlike the unprovoked follow-up from captain Biggles, the plastic pilot who I'm told is getting an airfix kit for his 14th birthday. True comedy gold to post that someone else attacks everyone, then does it himself.

 

As for the Yates/humour thing, I might point out that for3 years I had a weekly column of football jokes and humour in a national newspaper, also had similar stuff published in Shoot magazine, Daily Mirror, 4-4-2 magazine and several other publications - they seemed to think my sense of humour was fine and paid me £100 a week for just a few hundred words in the 1990s which was very welcome.

The point you missed is that, whether the original comment was serious or not, I save my football jokes to be at the expense of other clubs and don't undermine Vale (or even ex-Vale players in most cases).

 

Yates is clearly upset at losing his place, and the fact that he is shows his loyalty, so he doesn't need that sort of halfwit barely funny post. Dave Regis falling in a puddle, great, Liverpool and their beach ball goal at Sunderland , hilarious, but don't shyt on your own doorstep, support the Vale AND their players.

 

ps Bernard Manning could be funny, but spoiled his act by being offensive to several innocent and some vulnerable groups of people and I don't miss him at all. I appreciate many of those people laughed along with him, but even if only a few were really upset by it, that's reason enough not to do it.

[Leicestershire Valiant]

Calm down now eh son, calm down, eh, eh, eh?

We are also known for our sarcasm (some say it is the lowest form of wit, but I'm quite short, so thats fine).

I'm guessing the comment re Yates and wearing number 2 was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Can't guarantee it, but no need to attack DavidatPreston just for the sake of it.

And Bernard Manning? Really? That fat sexist racist was about as funny as projectile vomiting.

Thousands of funnier people

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I never found Bernard Manning funny but saw no reason to ban him and I saw no reason for him not to perform his 'act'.....I don't see some people holding back on their posts on here cos some people might find their posts offensive.

 

I don't generally believe in banning things because some people are offended, where does that end..I find the daily Mirror offensive, I find Peter Kay offensive, I find the X factor offensive, I find jokes about certain illnesses/conditions offensive..so what do I do..I don't laugh at them and I don't watch/read them

 

That does not mean that there should not be rules/legislation but that an awful lot of thought and effort should go into arriving at those rules/legislation and something being offensive to some is not enough for me.

[davidatpreston]

I never found Bernard Manning funny but saw no reason to ban him and I saw no reason for him not to perform his 'act'.....I don't see some people holding back on their posts on here cos some people might find their posts offensive.

 

I don't generally believe in banning things because some people are offended, where does that end..I find the daily Mirror offensive, I find Peter Kay offensive, I find the X factor offensive, I find jokes about certain illnesses/conditions offensive..so what do I do..I don't laugh at them and I don't watch/read them

 

That does not mean that there should not be rules/legislation but that an awful lot of thought and effort should go into arriving at those rules/legislation and something being offensive to some is not enough for me.

 

 

All fine, except that nobody on this thread has said that Bernard Mannings humour or similar acts should actually be banned.

 

I'm also not in favour of censorship generally, though I would actually like some careful monitoring on totally unnecessary violence in video games and films, but not on jokes.

The opening post on here referred to my objection to a dig at Adam Yates - I didn't say ban it though !!! Surely one can object to the sentiment, and try to make a point so that others may see it differently, that is just debate and should be considered healthy.

 

 

In the same way, banning Bernard M style humour, even though some of it is very offensive, wont help - but asking people to please think hard whether it really is funny to laugh at a bus load of Pakistanis crashing, or if disabled people are hilarious 'cos they walk funny - well, if you make your point well (not saying I do) then just maybe people will think twice about laughing or not.

Banning things has never exactly been successful, from Frankie Goes To Hollywood's 'Relax' record in the 80s which helped it to several weeks at no 1, before that the Sex pistols 'God Save The Queen' ban in Jubilee year also made them much more popular, plus many books, films etc were much more successful when banned.

 

Not reading things you don't like or not laughing at them is a good start, but I would also reserve the right to say I don't like something and why I don't like it, even if I make one single person think about it again then it is worth the effort.

 

 

 

 

And after all that, the rest of today is reserved for a certain match just west of Birmingham. Up the Vale, and to those going, have a superb trip, a fantastic result for Vale,a great night and safe journeys both ways.

[geosname]

The whole point of laughter is its uncontrollable nature... if something is funny people laugh, from gallows humour to slapstick.

If you have to think about it it destroys its purpose, its essence, the spontaneity dies, its stops being funny and becomes simply mildly amusing... a bit like a cat playing with a butterfly.

[Yukon]

The whole point of laughter is its uncontrollable nature... if something is funny people laugh, from gallows humour to slapstick.

If you have to think about it it destroys its purpose, its essence, the spontaneity dies, its stops being funny and becomes simply mildly amusing... a bit like a cat playing with a butterfly.

 

Come on Geo admit it, you thought this was a support group for the chronically miserable didn't you!?!

[JOHNNYAITCH]

All fine, except that nobody on this thread has said that Bernard Mannings humour or similar acts should actually be banned.

 

I posted " no reason to ban him and I saw no reason for him not to perform his 'act'"..you clearly missed the last bit

 

I'm also not in favour of censorship generally, though I would actually like some careful monitoring on totally unnecessary violence in video games and films, but not on jokes.

 

You were the one who posted about Bernard Manning and his act ". I appreciate many of those people laughed along with him but even if only a few were really upset by it, that's reason enough not to do it".

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The whole point of laughter is its uncontrollable nature... if something is funny people laugh, from gallows humour to slapstick.

If you have to think about it it destroys its purpose, its essence, the spontaneity dies, its stops being funny and becomes simply mildly amusing... a bit like a cat playing with a butterfly.

 

I tend to agree

 

It's not that people are laughing at something but why they are that matters..if it matters at all. It's not black and white..lots of grey in between

[davidatpreston]

I posted " no reason to ban him and I saw no reason for him not to perform his 'act'"..you clearly missed the last bit

 

 

You were the one who posted about Bernard Manning and his act ". I appreciate many of those people laughed along with him but even if only a few were really upset by it, that's reason enough not to do it".

 

Not sure I understand your first paragraph, perhaps you didn't notice that it was not me that introduced Bernard Manning into this thread, he never was of any importance to me and my original concern was with Adam Yates, who along with my club is hundreds of millions of times more significant than a yesteryear fringe loonbucket.

 

 

Yes, my meaning being that hopefully either he would have decided himself to remove the damaging material, or perhaps those close to him might persuade him it wasn't a good thing to include such stuff. Maybe a forlorn hope, academic now that we are rid of him.

 

Enjoy following the match - perhaps if Vale get a good result you'll be a bit less grumpy and forget about the insignificant whatshisname greaseball.