Jokes about prison rape on men? Not a fan.

[TSwizzle]

I can't say I've heard many comedians tell "prison rape jokes". But the joke is either funny or not depending on one's sense of humor. And that's the way most comedians approach their material, will the audience laugh and be entertained.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is a pejorative description of a significant portion of human morality, and since you do that deliberately, it is unethical on your part to do that.

That is a very big leap to make. I do not accept the unnecessary axiom that being pejorative of a common flaw in the system is unethical. Selfishness and tribalism are built into "human morality", too, and those are similarly bad.

It is also epistemically irrational on your part to fail to realize that this is part of human morality.

Morality is not ethics. Ethics are not morality. 0/2

Humans who are being epistemically rational will realize just retribution is, well, just.

begging the question.

And no, of course, it is not the case that rational humans should learn to overcome or redirect something that is part of morality. Nor will they, regardless of the power of the Woke.

begging the question, equivocating "what we feel for irrational reasons is right" with "what we can understand, using reason and rational investigation, is in fact the best course of action".

The 'oughts' do not come from the commands of God. They are part of our mental architechture - which, as it happened, evolved.

appeal to nature

And I was not trying to get from an is to ought - though I can do that too: it is immoral for you to condemn just retribution

begging the question that revenge is ever "justified", a concept I have roundly rejected

, so you ought not to do it. Rather, I was saying that just retribution is an evolved part of the human moral faculty - and a very significant one at that.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, that it is part of a shitty moral machinery makes no difference. We overlay learned and educated patterns to correct our moral (emotional pseudo-ethic) machinery toward rationally discovered ethical models all the time. You just seem to wish to be LAZY and UNCIVILIZED.

You can make it go away if you manage massive genetic engineering and replace humans with something else. You can suppress it if you manage to make some AGI-dictator. But short of that, you are not in luck.

or, you know, teach people philosophical ethics, and design laws that conform to the superior ethical model.

You need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome.

The just punishment of the guilty is the best outcome, all other things equal (though not always they are, so sometimes it's a lesser evil to let them get away with evil).

you are just assetring the premise here again, as part of your argument...

There are better models now, more time, more security. The only question is, do you think you can be more reasonable and rational than cave men. I joined these boards when it was still "freethought and rationalism discussion boards". "Letting my revenge boner steer me into revenge" is not a rational process, it is an emotional one.

Instead of "revenge boner", you should perhaps call it your 'retributive justice moral faculty'. And no, attempting to destroy one of your moral faculties is a bad idea. It's not rational. Or morally acceptable.

Again begging the question. Are you going to actually provide reasonable arguments? No?

The first thing to do to get to the truth is to doubt. To doubt the correctness of something that evolved just-so in the Paleolithic age is right up at the top.

 

[Toni]

I have targeted nukes at my own planet. And joked about it. If it were up to me, i would want to prevent nuclear war. But i still joked about it.

I worked a suicide hotline. I did this exactly because i wanted to stop suicides. But among the hotline workers, we joked about some of the calls.

The missile tech who volunteered on an ambulance had anecdotes that made MTs throw up. Not me, but i was working the hotline at the time. We used to just clear out the break room, swapping stories. But finding humor in a subject is a separate subject from the reality.

Given the opportunity, or authority, or sufficient tasers, i would stop any rape, even in prison, even if the victim was a rapist, a child molester, or one of the Trumps.

However, the idea of someone like Bannon, or Stone, or Trump being in prison, and facing the threat of rape amuses me. Not because of any thoughts of justice, karma, or retribution.
I like the idea of some evil bastard facing the fact that he's fallen so low, that no matter his money, his clout, his political savvy, or his friends, he's now a goldfish in a shark tank. And he done it to his own greedy self.

And that's funny.

Yeah, I just can’t get to any place close to rape as being funny. Or just or acceptable. Rape should not be part of any criminal sentence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, I just can’t get to any place close to rape as being funny. Or just or acceptable.

it's a defense. The fact thsst it's unacceptable is what drives the humor. In skilled hands.

Rape should not be part of any criminal sentence.

I agree. Which is why i reject it as 'karma.'

If someone or some thing has determined that rape, for example, is a bad thing, i wouod expect it/them to try to reduce the event. Not to carefully orchestrate lives to meter out a requisite amount of retributive rape.
It just seems weird to believe 'rape bad, therefore more rape' is a meaningful plan.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have targeted nukes at my own planet. And joked about it. If it were up to me, i would want to prevent nuclear war. But i still joked about it.

I worked a suicide hotline. I did this exactly because i wanted to stop suicides. But among the hotline workers, we joked about some of the calls.

The missile tech who volunteered on an ambulance had anecdotes that made MTs throw up. Not me, but i was working the hotline at the time. We used to just clear out the break room, swapping stories. But finding humor in a subject is a separate subject from the reality.

Given the opportunity, or authority, or sufficient tasers, i would stop any rape, even in prison, even if the victim was a rapist, a child molester, or one of the Trumps.

However, the idea of someone like Bannon, or Stone, or Trump being in prison, and facing the threat of rape amuses me. Not because of any thoughts of justice, karma, or retribution.
I like the idea of some evil bastard facing the fact that he's fallen so low, that no matter his money, his clout, his political savvy, or his friends, he's now a goldfish in a shark tank. And he done it to his own greedy self.

And that's funny.

Yeah, I just can’t get to any place close to rape as being funny. Or just or acceptable. Rape should not be part of any criminal sentence.

What if it is an ape? Apologies for that awful capture. Best I could find.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x07BKBdjIak[/YOUTUBE]

 

[laughing dog]

I find the notion that retributive justice is "genetically engineered" to ridiculous.

 

[jab]

That is a very big leap to make. I do not accept the unnecessary axiom that being pejorative of a common flaw in the system is unethical. Selfishness and tribalism are built into "human morality", too, and those are similarly bad.

Morality is not ethics. Ethics are not morality. 0/2

Humans who are being epistemically rational will realize just retribution is, well, just.

begging the question.

And no, of course, it is not the case that rational humans should learn to overcome or redirect something that is part of morality. Nor will they, regardless of the power of the Woke.

begging the question, equivocating "what we feel for irrational reasons is right" with "what we can understand, using reason and rational investigation, is in fact the best course of action".

The 'oughts' do not come from the commands of God. They are part of our mental architechture - which, as it happened, evolved.

appeal to nature

And I was not trying to get from an is to ought - though I can do that too: it is immoral for you to condemn just retribution

begging the question that revenge is ever "justified", a concept I have roundly rejected

, so you ought not to do it. Rather, I was saying that just retribution is an evolved part of the human moral faculty - and a very significant one at that.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, that it is part of a shitty moral machinery makes no difference. We overlay learned and educated patterns to correct our moral (emotional pseudo-ethic) machinery toward rationally discovered ethical models all the time. You just seem to wish to be LAZY and UNCIVILIZED.

You can make it go away if you manage massive genetic engineering and replace humans with something else. You can suppress it if you manage to make some AGI-dictator. But short of that, you are not in luck.

or, you know, teach people philosophical ethics, and design laws that conform to the superior ethical model.

You need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome.

The just punishment of the guilty is the best outcome, all other things equal (though not always they are, so sometimes it's a lesser evil to let them get away with evil).

you are just assetring the premise here again, as part of your argument...

There are better models now, more time, more security. The only question is, do you think you can be more reasonable and rational than cave men. I joined these boards when it was still "freethought and rationalism discussion boards". "Letting my revenge boner steer me into revenge" is not a rational process, it is an emotional one.

Instead of "revenge boner", you should perhaps call it your 'retributive justice moral faculty'. And no, attempting to destroy one of your moral faculties is a bad idea. It's not rational. Or morally acceptable.

Again begging the question. Are you going to actually provide reasonable arguments? No?

The first thing to do to get to the truth is to doubt. To doubt the correctness of something that evolved just-so in the Paleolithic age is right up at the top.

okay: 1. Do you believe that serious crimes should be punished? M. A. does, and conflates punishment with revenge. You seem to accept that conflation. Do you? I don't think they're quite the same thing.
2. Certain types of offenders are routinely in danger of being beaten by other inmates, and not necessarily raped, because of the nature of the offense.
3. What do you have against boners? "Revenge craving" or "revenge jones" or "revenge addiction" would make more sense, since you seem to be trying to make a point about revenge that covers more than rape as revenge.

 

[jab]

Yeah, I just can’t get to any place close to rape as being funny. Or just or acceptable.

it's a defense. The fact thsst it's unacceptable is what drives the humor. In skilled hands.

Rape should not be part of any criminal sentence.

I agree. Which is why i reject it as 'karma.'

If someone or some thing has determined that rape, for example, is a bad thing, i wouod expect it/them to try to reduce the event. Not to carefully orchestrate lives to meter out a requisite amount of retributive rape.
It just seems weird to believe 'rape bad, therefore more rape' is a meaningful plan.

By the same logic: locking someone up against their will and forcibly detaining them there is bad, so therefore prison is always bad.
The question is, what is justifiable social response to a crime, and of course to specific crimes.
I would not consider armed robbery sufficient to make the possibility of prison rape at all funny--the way ironic karma is often funny. On the other hand, madam Maxwell. . . ?
How's about Paul Bernardo?
I wouldn't shed I tear, I wouldn't bother to laugh, but I would smile.

 

[Toni]

Some folks opine that bad people will get what’s coming to them by ending up in prison, victimized by rape. It’s usually delivered as a laugh line.

But I’d like to suggest it’s harmful and wrong to make a laugh out of extra-judicial violence, particularly in the case of the traumatizing and degrading violence of rape.

My personal philosophy is that retribution never helps. It only legitimizes the idea that violence and degradation is okay when you feel “justified.” All criminals feel “justified.” All bullies feel “justified” all of those school shooters and all of those rapists feel “justified.”

I think it is a bad turn for society to give them any indication in any way that all you have to feel is “justified” and you can rape, assault, brutalize, murder.

Or that there is any justification for rape, assault, or murder.

 

[Jarhyn]

That is a very big leap to make. I do not accept the unnecessary axiom that being pejorative of a common flaw in the system is unethical. Selfishness and tribalism are built into "human morality", too, and those are similarly bad.

Morality is not ethics. Ethics are not morality. 0/2
begging the question.


begging the question, equivocating "what we feel for irrational reasons is right" with "what we can understand, using reason and rational investigation, is in fact the best course of action".

The 'oughts' do not come from the commands of God. They are part of our mental architechture - which, as it happened, evolved.

appeal to nature

And I was not trying to get from an is to ought - though I can do that too: it is immoral for you to condemn just retribution

begging the question that revenge is ever "justified", a concept I have roundly rejected

, so you ought not to do it. Rather, I was saying that just retribution is an evolved part of the human moral faculty - and a very significant one at that.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, that it is part of a shitty moral machinery makes no difference. We overlay learned and educated patterns to correct our moral (emotional pseudo-ethic) machinery toward rationally discovered ethical models all the time. You just seem to wish to be LAZY and UNCIVILIZED.

You can make it go away if you manage massive genetic engineering and replace humans with something else. You can suppress it if you manage to make some AGI-dictator. But short of that, you are not in luck.

or, you know, teach people philosophical ethics, and design laws that conform to the superior ethical model.

You need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome.

The just punishment of the guilty is the best outcome, all other things equal (though not always they are, so sometimes it's a lesser evil to let them get away with evil).

you are just assetring the premise here again, as part of your argument...

There are better models now, more time, more security. The only question is, do you think you can be more reasonable and rational than cave men. I joined these boards when it was still "freethought and rationalism discussion boards". "Letting my revenge boner steer me into revenge" is not a rational process, it is an emotional one.

Instead of "revenge boner", you should perhaps call it your 'retributive justice moral faculty'. And no, attempting to destroy one of your moral faculties is a bad idea. It's not rational. Or morally acceptable.

Again begging the question. Are you going to actually provide reasonable arguments? No?

The first thing to do to get to the truth is to doubt. To doubt the correctness of something that evolved just-so in the Paleolithic age is right up at the top.

okay: 1. Do you believe that serious crimes should be punished? M. A. does, and conflates punishment with revenge. You seem to accept that conflation. Do you? I don't think they're quite the same thing.
2. Certain types of offenders are routinely in danger of being beaten by other inmates, and not necessarily raped, because of the nature of the offense.
3. What do you have against boners? "Revenge craving" or "revenge jones" or "revenge addiction" would make more sense, since you seem to be trying to make a point about revenge that covers more than rape as revenge.

1: no. Nothing needs to be "punished". Punishment, retribution, revenge are all the same thing, the same action to an outside observer, hurting people because they hurt others. Instead, we need to resolve one or more of how to ethically prevent/eliminate the will, the opportunity, and/or motive that drives criminal action (preferably, eliminating future motive and will, though sometimes prevention of opportunity is necessary). Punishment is, occasionally, a tool in the behavior modification toolbox, but it is the difficult to use and most easily abused tool in that box. There are plenty of places in the world where people do not punish criminals, but instead focus on will/motive/opportunity issues, and it works quite well.

2. Is does not establish ought.

3. Nothing, per se. But when you whip your boner out on the subway, or stick your boner in a non-consenting party, or rub it on someone else's pants, that's a big issue. Not every boner needs to be consummated. Some forms of boner ought never be consummated.

 

[Keith&Co.]

By the same logic: locking someone up against their will and forcibly detaining them there is bad, so therefore prison is always bad.

i notice you snuck an 'always' into your conclusion, there, which is not supported by your premise.
I had to lock my two-year-old up against his will or he'd have gone to play in traffic. So, if that's not an ALWAYS bad thing, it's not logical to conclude prison is always bad.

 

[Rhea]

I have targeted nukes at my own planet. And joked about it. If it were up to me, i would want to prevent nuclear war. But i still joked about it.
[...]
I like the idea of some evil bastard facing the fact that he's fallen so low, that no matter his money, his clout, his political savvy, or his friends, he's now a goldfish in a shark tank. And he done it to his own greedy self.

I do completely understand gallows humor. And I find it funny when it’s well done. I do get that. Ambulance jokes, nuke jokes.

So hmmm, why do jokes about rape as karma not fall into the funny category for me? Good question. Maybe it’s because this one is such an act of meanness. Maybe because it feels like choosing an actor to do something that feels too much like me doing it. As opposed to thinking it’s funny if something happens but rather wanting somethng to happen. Maybe that’s it? I dunno. I would be more likely to be amused by a joke about rape than one that approves of rape as the correct outcome. Maybe that’s it.


Interesting. Good discussion though, because how does it differ from other gallows humor? For me, it seems to differ.

 

[Rhea]

When they are applying their ideology, sure, just as Christians can go for 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. But in their daily lives, when their ideology is not applied because they're not thinking about it, they will do what human monkeys do: they will go for retribution of those they deem wrongdoers, even if a small percentage manage not to do so when they demand government punishment.

I do not see that in real life. The data I see are different. I do not see people seeking punishment and retribution all the time.

 

[Rhea]

Yes. You have a "revenge boner". A lot of people do. In this case "revenge boner" is a pejorative description of the desire to consummate revenge and experience a drive relief. It is a pejorative for any aroused emotional drive. You get "horny" but instead of that horniness to rub your dick, it's horniness to see someone else suffer during an act of revenge. It is a base instinct and one that rational humans should learn to either overcome or redirect.

It is a pejorative description of a significant portion of human morality, and since you do that deliberately, it is unethical on your part to do that. It is also epistemically irrational on your part to fail to realize that this is part of human morality. Humans who are being epistemically rational will realize just retribution is, well, just.

I feel like I just heard you say that Jarhyn was unethical for saying that people who want retribution in the form of prison rape have a boner.

We’re talking about people who want to hurt other people in serious ways and the person who is mocking it is the bad guy in that equaltion?

I did not see that coming...

 

[Rhea]

What if it is an ape? Apologies for that awful capture. Best I could find.

I find that it doesnt matter if it’s a human penis, an ape penis or a broken broomstick. Doesn’t create a laugh.
I never did like that scene. It broke the flow of humor in the movie.

 

[jab]

That is a very big leap to make. I do not accept the unnecessary axiom that being pejorative of a common flaw in the system is unethical. Selfishness and tribalism are built into "human morality", too, and those are similarly bad.

Morality is not ethics. Ethics are not morality. 0/2
begging the question.


begging the question, equivocating "what we feel for irrational reasons is right" with "what we can understand, using reason and rational investigation, is in fact the best course of action".
appeal to nature

And I was not trying to get from an is to ought - though I can do that too: it is immoral for you to condemn just retribution

begging the question that revenge is ever "justified", a concept I have roundly rejected

, so you ought not to do it. Rather, I was saying that just retribution is an evolved part of the human moral faculty - and a very significant one at that.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, that it is part of a shitty moral machinery makes no difference. We overlay learned and educated patterns to correct our moral (emotional pseudo-ethic) machinery toward rationally discovered ethical models all the time. You just seem to wish to be LAZY and UNCIVILIZED.

You can make it go away if you manage massive genetic engineering and replace humans with something else. You can suppress it if you manage to make some AGI-dictator. But short of that, you are not in luck.

or, you know, teach people philosophical ethics, and design laws that conform to the superior ethical model.

You need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome.

The just punishment of the guilty is the best outcome, all other things equal (though not always they are, so sometimes it's a lesser evil to let them get away with evil).

you are just assetring the premise here again, as part of your argument...

There are better models now, more time, more security. The only question is, do you think you can be more reasonable and rational than cave men. I joined these boards when it was still "freethought and rationalism discussion boards". "Letting my revenge boner steer me into revenge" is not a rational process, it is an emotional one.

Instead of "revenge boner", you should perhaps call it your 'retributive justice moral faculty'. And no, attempting to destroy one of your moral faculties is a bad idea. It's not rational. Or morally acceptable.

Again begging the question. Are you going to actually provide reasonable arguments? No?

The first thing to do to get to the truth is to doubt. To doubt the correctness of something that evolved just-so in the Paleolithic age is right up at the top.

okay: 1. Do you believe that serious crimes should be punished? M. A. does, and conflates punishment with revenge. You seem to accept that conflation. Do you? I don't think they're quite the same thing.
2. Certain types of offenders are routinely in danger of being beaten by other inmates, and not necessarily raped, because of the nature of the offense.
3. What do you have against boners? "Revenge craving" or "revenge jones" or "revenge addiction" would make more sense, since you seem to be trying to make a point about revenge that covers more than rape as revenge.

1: no. Nothing needs to be "punished". Punishment, retribution, revenge are all the same thing, the same action to an outside observer, hurting people because they hurt others. Instead, we need to resolve one or more of how to ethically prevent/eliminate the will, the opportunity, and/or motive that drives criminal action (preferably, eliminating future motive and will, though sometimes prevention of opportunity is necessary). Punishment is, occasionally, a tool in the behavior modification toolbox, but it is the difficult to use and most easily abused tool in that box. There are plenty of places in the world where people do not punish criminals, but instead focus on will/motive/opportunity issues, and it works quite well.

2. Is does not establish ought.

3. Nothing, per se. But when you whip your boner out on the subway, or stick your boner in a non-consenting party, or rub it on someone else's pants, that's a big issue. Not every boner needs to be consummated. Some forms of boner ought never be consummated.

1. I disagree with you on there being no distinction between punishment and revenge. Predictable punishment is supposed to have a preventative value, though how much varies from person to person.
2. While prison rape is often sexual and asserting power rather than punishment or retribution meted out be other prisoners, other types of retribution are meted out in prison, a fact ignored by posters, including, implicitly by you and your introduction of "boners" into a discussion of revenge.
3. Ah, I see, a Freudian--how quaint and old fashioned. All cravings, all emotions are sexualized, it seems, in your world view, and the civilized superego is available to tamp those sexualized emotions down.

 

[jab]

By the same logic: locking someone up against their will and forcibly detaining them there is bad, so therefore prison is always bad.

i notice you snuck an 'always' into your conclusion, there, which is not supported by your premise.
I had to lock my two-year-old up against his will or he'd have gone to play in traffic. So, if that's not an ALWAYS bad thing, it's not logical to conclude prison is always bad.

looks like you snuck away from your post, of which mine was a parody. And i notice you cut out the rest of my post. Of course I disagree with my own parodic line, and with your position about certain types of jokes always being so bad they're not funny.

 

[Keith&Co.]

looks like you snuck away from your post, of which mine was a parody.

what 'snuck away?' I didn't realize it was a parody.
Just saw a bad-logic attack on my logic. Sorry if that was the intent.

And i notice you cut out the rest of my post.

i didn't feel like responding to that. I am not under the impression i must respond to everything in a post.

and with your position about certain types of jokes always being so bad they're not funny.

Did i say that? That doesn't sound like my position. I feel everything is at least hypothetically fit for humor, though not always to every person's taste.

 

[Keith&Co.]

nteresting. Good discussion though, because how does it differ from other gallows humor? For me, it seems to differ.

Well, there are a lot of facts about prison life that could be invoked in Bannon's dismal future.

The food. The schedule. The toilet in the middle of your shared bedroom. The slave labor. The need to join a gang to protect you from the white supremacist gang when they figure out who you committed your crimes against. That could be a reality show with a laugh track.

And you might send him a floral bouquet warning him to avoid becoming the property of a 300 lb weightlifter with LIVE and LOVE tattooed on his knuckles, an LA on his right hip, and GH on his left hip.

But that's all different than the suggestion that he deserves this treatment, and the warden should hopefully precipitate it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I find the notion that retributive justice is "genetically engineered" to ridiculous.

Indeed, as there is no engineer. But it's part of human morality. And you would need genetic engineering to change it - well, I guess you could also try forced artificial selection for sufficiently long, but that's even more difficult because humans will not enforce that for that long, and if you have a dictator AGI genetic engineering is more effective and much faster. On the other hand, if you only want to suppress it, the AGI need not bother with engineering - though it might find it simpler.