Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
of someone asking how to 'fix' his ex being happy.
It'll do you good
Grow some bollocks, wishpig
Nothing is 'not funny'.
Your reaction is one reason why this particular instance might be.
How many funectomies must have been ill-performed for Twitter to be in an uproar?
I blame the NHS
Is it catching on? You're so fetch.
And in time, it'll eventually settle into casual use.
“My girlfriend like to wear short skirts. I think she looks great in them, but it does mean that she gets lots of admiring glances from other men. What should I do?”
“Tell her the skirts make her look fat.”
I quite like Danny Dyer and not in a totally ironic way.
these are worrying times?
Looks the guy who sits next to me has hacked my account. Kindly ignore all posts starting from Dick Dom and ending with D excitement.
He's good with advice.
would have given stupid, bedwetting twats with Twitter accounts bigger things to worry about.
Excellent class war in the comments section.
Apparently no-one that reads the Guardian is prepared to entertain the notion that Zoo readers recognise irony.
I think the ''Zoo reading'' archetype has been done to death.
Definately not. It's ''Heat'', ''The Word'' and ''The Guardian'' for me. That's my reading appetites satiated.
"Their reading standard is at or below an 11-year-old's."
It was a little bit of misplaced humour. Everybody knows it was slightly doltish, but completely harmless.
and PWOPAH NAWTY
He was fwucking mental.
His daughter's called Dani, innit.
(this is not where I first heard it)
tell me, is it also ok to make jokes about cutting womens faces in the same room as someone whose been the victim of violence, or is it best kept in print?
what does 'OK' mean in this context?
generally regarded as tolerable by society.
as we've already established, by way of several people disagreeing in this thread, that there is no such consensus.
which was why i said i found it amusing that people presume to validate the situation. when they say it's all a big fuss about nothing or tack on their own ironic dyer jokes, they do so from a very, very secure position.
for my part the article leaves me cold - it's in poor taste but it's not worth bothering with - but people smugly enjoying the joke does irritate me a little.
it seems that any attempt to 'validate' the joke has been a response to someone else claiming it's categorically not funny, unacceptable and condones domestic abuse. I don't think anyone is being as smug or secure as you've suggested.
let's just assume you're right and call it a victory for something.
Isn't that what you were doing when you castigated those of us who weren't sufficiently outraged as being "smug"?
does that mean I've actually, properly won?
i wasn't trying to criticise people at all. i was just trying to suggest that no one in this thread is in a position to say that the 'joke' is valid or that peoples reactions are excessive, and that attempts to do so sound hollow and crass to me.
INFINITE HYPOCRISY LOOP. FLEE.
have much of a place in this argument.
I didn't find it funny at all, but I got that it was a somewhat ironic, throwaway comment that doesn't really need further scrutiny.
but because he was clearly making fun of someone who was trying to 'fix' his ex being happy and having moved on. It wasn't simply a dodgy 'taboo' gag a la Boyle.
I need some kind of fanfare MIDI file right now. This has never happened before.
and this joke has the potential for a 'boyle moment' where the person making it, or repeating it, comes face to face with someone who has experience of the subject and doesn't find it funny in the slightest.
all i'm saying is that it's very easy to laugh or just to call criticism an overreaction, but most of the people in this thread are men. it's not our issue.
all i'm saying is that it's very easy to laugh or to call criticism an overreaction, but most of the people in this thread are men. it's not our issue.
Because the joke itself parodies the complete idiots who would do this sort of thing in psychotic anger, and therefore ridicules those who seek to hurt the innocent, because they're fucking horrible people.
If I'd talked about that question/answer at a party, and a woman said 'i was attacked with a knife by my ex', my response would be the one above: it was highlighting laddish over-reaction.
It wasn't even a joke, really, was it? More a good point well made.
well if that's the case i'd argue it was a very ineffective way to make a serious point. it's not a subtle or complex issue that is best undermined by parody. hell, to my mind it's an issue that should inspire passion and anger but instead everyone's falling over themselves to be blase.
he was making the point in a lads mag. A bullet-point list of abuse tendencies in men over a certain age along with victim's statements would not have been in any way worth writing.
He's working with a laddish paradigm, which he's made millions from, and the best way he could get away with satire in a magazine written for those with a sense of humour that understands the dry smiles of his films was to approach it with a less-than-subtle argument.
Your points are getting weaker, and I suspect it's because you're stumbling towards the idea that I might be right on this.
i vaguely understand your position but i think you're assuming far to much about dyer's intentions. even if he was trying to make a point i consider it flimsy and light weight way to deal with a mortally serious issue.
if you're comfortable with your position then more power to you, but it's not something i can treat casually or dispassionately. everyone has there hot button topics, right?
they do indeed, but I'm saying your right, and that perhaps his comment more agreed with your stance, albeit in a less than satisfactory way for you.
And I think that you've been assuming far too little not only about the morality and character of not only Dyer, but also a fair few people on this board.
because that's genuinely not my intetion. i'm just talking and i know i'm way out on the peripheray of general opinion on the issue.
i can't even effectively articulate my positon except to say that i find that indirect criticism or casual discussion feels like a normalisation of an issue that deserves serious social stigma. something that our society agrees with in principle but not in the details of its behaviour. i know it's an absurdly fixed position to take in our fluid and multifaceted culture but i can't shake it.
it's an incredibly complex issue.
Some of it shit, some of it brilliant, loads of it average. Do you really want to live in a world where the only allowed humour is definitely inoffensive to EVERYONE? Really?
I think there's even less of a case to answer when people voluntarily expose themselves to this stuff, anyone going to see Frankie Boyle and getting upset when he has a go at vulnerable people, or reading Zoo and getting upset about not-funny-enough sexist nonsense (whether there's as much irony as xylo thinks or not) really needs to ask themselves why they are choosing to expose themselves to so much material they find offensive.
and i'd in no way look to supress it. if nothing else, the worst examples act as a bell weather and people's varying responses can prove interesting.
as to whether people should completely self select their media, i'm not entirely sure this is true, simply because boyle's response to his encounter with the mother of the down's child was really interesting. if people completel self selected there would never be any cross fertilisation.
and i can't find the article i read on the subject. basically it suggested that following the encounter with the mother he went on a riff about the nature of transgressive comedy and what his jokes were about, and it showed some interesting insight. except i can't find it again. could have sworn it was on the guardian but it doesn't appear to be.
Due to a production error, an inappropriate and indefensible response to a letter appeared in this week's ZOO. We apologise unreservedly.
I wish all of Zoo was written in this manner.
it's easier to apologise than to debate the comedic value of the column, and to alienate part of their dwindling readership by admitting that they were mocking the stereotype that probably constitutes a fair proportion of it.
you're spot on. Nice.
'sub editor missed/passed it because it was written by a celebrity, and is now getting a bollocking because they wouldn't dare shout at Danny.
Being a sub can suck.
celebrities can be wary about ghosting in anything other than books - too dangerous for their rep, especially since mags often say 'the mag does not in any way share the views of the writers' etc.
/\ I hope Danny doesn't (can't) read this, it'd be a total Boyle moment!
man that's a huge prick says something that makes him sound like a huge prick.
most people reply "what a twat"
some people reply "GAAAAAWD YOURE SO RIGHT-ON GET OVER IT, HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF HUMOUR?!"!?"
and half-read something.
Now you sound like CG when he's trolling. Consider that.
NESTO, YOU JUST GOT XYLOPWNED RIGHT UP IN THIS SPOT, MOTHERLOVER!!!!
BETTA TAKE YO TIME TO READ A FULL THREAD BEFORE YOU HIT UP THAT 'POST REPLY' BUTTON IN FUTURE!!!! THIS FOOL MIGHT BE FEELIN DOWN ABOUT DIS BUT HE JUST PUT YO ASS ON THE FLOOR, BITCH!!!
it's amazing all of the time
and that people in this thread seemingly have no sense of humour are entirely compatible with each other
i think you're a reactionary fuck who prides himself on never taking anything seriously. we've been over this before.
but there is something wrong that presuming that *all* conversations on the internet are meaningless. it's a subject you proselytise on, wading into the middle of conversations with your 'down to earth bloke' schtick telling people to stop their meaningless emotional engagement with the issues. it would be nice to think that there was one single subject or cause that you cared enough about to look beyond this existential crisis. fuck, i forgot, there is: football.
the irony is that you've racked up more meaningless posts on this forum with just your new identity than i have in the entire time that i've been here. you're a lightweight fuck who relishes being trivial about the world and tries to bring everyone else down to his level. i can only assume you enjoy it because you do it so fucking much.
''"It does change my view of the magazine for printing it and the man. I did it because I wanted some advice. His advice was a bit sick. I was with the girl for a year and would never think about trying to hurt her.''
Need advice...write to Danny Dyer (obv.)
''"I'm going to ring them [Zoo] and see what they have to say. When something like this happens at first I'd like an apology and maybe COMPENSATION."
Oh, it becomes abit more clear, Alex....you money grabbing weasle.
I find threads like this genuinely interesting.
- LOL people
- disgusted people
- people who LOL @ the disgusteds
- people who are disgusted at those LOLing at the disgusteds
- people LOLing at them
But I'd like to make love to disgusteds...tenderly...before I cut their faces
she takes a serious view of a number of issues or events that you find to be trivial so she is going to die alone and unloved, and/or be mad enough to leave all her money to cats. good one.
Kitty day spa.
and think crazy cats lady with no friends is one of the best things you can be in life.
What are you, like a failed banker who used to own a skateboard, would-be troll with no friends?