An attempt to explain why some jokes are never funny when pols make them

[AlGore-08.com]

Recently there have been a number of flame wars which devolved into one side claiming something was "just a joke" and the other side claiming that some jokes are never funny. Last night there was another one - - Joe Biden was on the Daily Show, and (I'm paraphrasing) Jon Stewart told Biden you can't just pick any woman in the audience (to be your wife), and Biden joked back that he could, because he's a Senator. Very quickly the discussion devolved into "Biden said something offensive" vs. "Biden was just joking so it can't be offensive". So I thought I'd try to find a way to explain why some jokes are never funny.

Suppose there was a person named John Doe who had a favorite joke, which revolved around a drunk driver crashing his car. If you told this joke, there was no way to make it work if you took out the drunk driver, or if the driver was sober, or if the drunk driver didn't crash his car.

So John Doe is in the cafeteria at work, sitting with a bunch of coworkers he never met before. To break the ice, he tells his favorite joke about a drunk driver who crashes his car. Usually the joke gets a good laugh. But this time, it gets total silence, then one woman suddenly starts crying and runs out of the room. One of his coworkers explains to John Doe that a drunk driver killed her husband and child last week. But John Doe didn't know about this tragedy, so nobody really holds it against him that he told this totally inappropriate joke.

However, if John Doe went to a meeting of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and told his joke about the drunk who crashes his car, most people would think John Doe was insensitive at best. If he then argued with the members of M.A.D.D. that it was only a joke, and the fact that they didn't laugh showed they had some kind of personal problem, most people would think John Doe was the one with the problem.

Everybody has some personal experiences which are so painful they can't find them funny. But for women and minorities (including GLBT), there are some "universal" experiences which are even more painful, because they are part of what has kept us second class citizens. Some of them are less horrific than others, but we know they are part of the continuum of hate which bigoted members of the majority community have used to keep us in our place.

So let's say John Doe is a white guy, and his funny joke isn't about a drunk driver - - it's about a lynching. John Doe's joke about lynching can be "funny" if it's told to a group of white people. But that same "funny" joke can also be used by a bigot to intimidate a black person - - a not so subtle death threat. So if John Doe tells this "funny" lynching joke to a group which contains at least one black person, the black person has to figure out what the intent of the joke was. Even if it was "just a joke" and not intended to intimidate, the burden shifts to the black listener. They have to decide whether to "be the jerk" by voicing their feelings, and explaining what should be obvious to anybody who has even a passing knowledge of the history of race relations in America.

So if John Doe is your average, run of the mill, non-political type, and he tells this joke in a social setting, it's just insensitive and offensive. If John Doe tells his lynching joke at work, it can be racial harassment, and he can lose his job and/or get sued. But if John Doe tells his lynching joke at a Democratic Party meeting, or a meeting of the ACLU, or any other progressive organization which is dedicated to equality for everybody, John Doe's lynching joke becomes offensive in a way it isn't in any other situation. And if John Doe holds public office, and he tells his joke about lynching, it reaches an even higher level of offensiveness.

It's a basic, political rule that you don't offend people you want to vote for you. It's a "Duh!" When Congressman Doe laughs with Jon Stewart about his funny lynching joke, he is committing a major "Duh!" At best he is showing his ignorance of black history. At worst he's showing that he is a racist. Regardless of where he falls on this spectrum, he is showing how little he cares about winning black votes, because he's just insulted a huge number of them for a lousy joke.

So when Joe Biden gets on the Daily Show and tells a joke that requires either sexual harassment or rape to make the joke "funny"... as a woman, I walk away thinking "Joe Biden doesn't meet the Duh! test on womens' issues". He's just made it that much harder to convince me that he is sincere about womens' issues in particular, and civil rights in general.

I know that some folks will say the answer to this will be that I, as a woman, have to ignore whether a pol is sincere about my civil rights. "There are more important issues at stake." I disagree. It's Joe Biden's job to convince me that he is somebody I want to vote for. Now (imagining for a minute I did not already have a preference in the primary) if the primary was between two Dems whose policies I felt comfortable with, and one of them had told a sexist joke on the Daily Show and one had not, am I going to decide to vote for the guy who told the sexual harassment joke? Duh! Of course not.

I've written this to try and explain what it's like to be in the minority and hear "just a joke". So flame away.

[Marnieworld]

1. I guess I need to read the transcript.

As you described it I, as a woman too BTW, don't see what's so offensive. From just reading what you wrote I thought that he was implying that he gets more female interest because he's a Senator (money, power prestige) that sort of thing which is the truth. Richer powerful men and women have more options romantically. I don't see how you found rape and sexual harassment in all of that but perhaps if I saw it or read the actual words I could see.

In any case, interviews on talk shows is not the way to judge a senator. The only thing that matters is how they vote and that's the basis of whether they walk the walk. Perhaps you should, if it really matters to you, investigate his actual record on womens'/civil rights issues to see where he stands. I can only imagine how hard it is to be "on" and appealing on a comedy show when you are just a non-celebrity politician. My 2 cents.

[countingbluecars]

2. I understand what you are saying but

BIden's comment last night was not putting down women. Biden was trying to point out his wife in the audience (he couldn't find her immediately) and Stewart made the comment, "You can't just pick any woman in the audience to be your wife." Biden's reply was pompous but, I think, made in jest. I really don't understand how a minority was offended by it.

[AlGore-08.com]

7. That gets to the heart of what I was saying

Biden made a joke about "any woman can be his wife because he's a Senator" (paraphrasing again). What is the intent of the punchline? Does it mean, as some have suggested, "Any woman would marry a Senator for the perks" or does it mean, "I can force anybody to have sex with me and get away with it"? One is slightly less sexist than the other, but they're both sexist. And, I contend, even if they weren't sexist, they're both inappropriate jokes for a Senator running for President from a party which was almost destroyed by an affair in the Oval Office.

And again, here we are arguing about whether I should be offended, even though I have explained that I am offended. The burden is now on me, I am now "the jerk" because somebody said something that I found offensive and I was foolish enough to say "I found that offensive".

To take another nonpolitical example. Let's suppose that John Doe meets somebody new, will call her Jane Roe and Jane starts calling John Doe "Johnny". John Doe prefers to be called "John", and tells Jane: "Please, I really don't like to be called Johnny. Please call me John." But Jane continues to call him Johnny and he reminds her again. She says "I don't see anything wrong with calling you Johnny, you should stop being so sensitive".

Who would most people think was wrong in that situation?

[countingbluecars]

8. I understand your point

that what is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another. I saw nothing sexist in Biden's comment. To me, if anything, it was a glib remark about power. It could have been made by a women senator about picking a husband from the audience.

[AlGore-08.com]

13. It could have, but it wasn't and it wouldn't be the same if it was

If Barbara Boxer had made the same joke (she could have any man in the audience for her husband) it would still be a stupid, unfunny joke. It would still call into question whether she meant "Any man would marry a Senator for the perks" or "I can force anybody to have sex with me and get away with it".

But there is a level where it can't be the same when a woman makes that joke, because part of the cultural history of America includes the stereotype that marriage is a trap women lay for men to get financial security - - that all women are gold diggers. And sexual harassment has overwhelmingly been a crime of men harassing women, and rape is overwhelmingly a crime of men raping women. Women do sexually harass men, women do rape men, but it happens much, much less frequently. And our culture has supported this behavior in men, excusing it as a normal part of male sexuality, while harassment and rape are seen as abnormal when women perpetrate them.

To continue the lynching analogy: a black person can make a joke about lynching to a white person, and can mean it as a threat. But it will never carry the historical baggage that the same joking threat carries when a white person makes a "joking" threat to lynch a black person. Similarly, a Jewish person can make a joke about committing genocide to a German and mean it as a threat, but it cannot be as "loaded" as a German making the threat to a Jew, or a white person making the threat to a Native American, or a Turk making the threat to an Armenian, etc., etc., etc.

Again, the idea that "all women are gold diggers" is not as immediately harmful as "rape isn't a crime, it's a normal part of male sexual behavior", but it's still harmful. It's like the continuum between claiming "gays want special rights" and "if a straight man kills a gay man for coming on to him, it's justifiable homicide". Both are bigoted statements, but the second is more immediately harmful. And either one would be unacceptable coming from a Senator - - and if a Republican said them, 99.9% of DUers would be howling that he was a bigoted jerk for saying them.

[htuttle]

3. A little guy punching out a big guy is funny

A big guy punching out a little guy is just mean.

BTW, that's actually why Dennis Miller will never be funny.

[Orrex]

6. That, and he's just not funny

But your point is good in any case.

[Misunderestimator]

4. Great post...

I missed the whole thing... but from what you say about Biden's comment, I agree with you completely. And knowing the way that jokes are sometimes told here despite knowing that much of the audience may be offended... I also agree with your analogy, and I don't excuse the joke-teller by assuming something offensive was said innocently. Everyone posting here knows that this is a public forum. Biden knows that his joke would be heard by a large audience, and he should have known that it would offend many. You're right that he is clearly not sensitive enough to women's issues.

It's never just a joke.

[countingbluecars]

5. Watch the Biden-Stewart clip if you get a chance.

The context is very important. I did not find it offensive.

[Bunny]

9. Are you a woman?

[countingbluecars]

10. Yes.

[jane_pippin]

11. This just shows that comedy is best left to the pros...

I think you make some very good points and explain your reasoning very well.

I often fall into the "it's just a joke" camp, but I'm not entirely in it this time. I'm a woman and I wasn't offended by Biden's lame attempt at humor. I just thought "gee, stick to what you know pal." I do, however, understand why and how someone could have been offended by it.

I'd like to say something about how we tend to react, and overreact to comedians here sometimes, but first let me say this: Joe Biden and everyone else of his ilk who go on shows like TDS of course do so at least on some level to seem "hip" to the Daily Show viewers. For some reason they feel compelled to joke around with Jon and nine times out of ten they aren't funny. I call it, The Cool Kid reaction because the "square," in this case, Biden, is trying to prove his chops to the "cool kids," Jon and his audience of young voters. I'd be happier if they'd just be themselves but it's politics and that's too much to ask. Again, it reinforces my point, comedy is best left to the pros.

What I keep coming back to is that there is a difference between John Doe telling racist jokes and professionals telling jokes that have taken (in some cases) years to craft, and we should try to keep that in mind. Why? Well, all comedy takes a "truth" and distorts it wildly. Hence, the funny part is born. A bad comedian will take a stereotype, decide it is "truth" and go on from there hence, not funny and usually offensive. A good comedian, and a smart comedian, points out hipocrisy whether about themselves, the government, relationships, anything, and comes at it from a new angle. They aren't putting people down, they're calling people out. Most of the legendary comedians aren't legendary for telling racist or sexist jokes. (Heard much from Andrew Dice Clay recently? Didn't think so).

So how does rant relate to our man Joe Biden? First of all, I just needed to think out loud and vent, so thanks for letting me. Beyond that, Biden made a stupid, idiotic, inappropriate, unfunny remark, that he probably, (incorrectly), thought was self-depricating. (My guess is he thought he was being sarcastic--Sure, I can have anything I want. I'm a senator--but it obviously was a dumb joke that came out meaning something much different.) Was it wrong? Yeah. Do I think it was as bad as telling racist jokes to the NAACP? No. Why? Because while I believe John Doe believes the bullshit racism/sexism he spews with hateful humor like that, I'm gonna need more than one horrible flop of a joke from Biden to believe he actually thinks he can have any woman he wants because he's a senator or that he hates women.

That's just my opinion, and I certianly respect the right of those who were offended by it to be offended. As Kim Campbell (first female PM of Canada) said as a guest on Bill Maher's show last year, "If you aren't offended at least once a day, you aren't really living in a democracy." I think she's right, and I'm glad we're at least in a place where we can have a decent discussion about this stuff.

Thanks again for letting me vent. (This took a while to write so either this thread is dead by the time I post it or everyone already said what I was trying to say so apologies either way).

[Ariana Celeste]

12. Welcome to DU, and

I think you made a great point.

[jane_pippin]

14. Thanks on both counts.

[AlGore-08.com]

17. So here is another difference: you assume that John Doe is a bigot

But Congressman Doe is probably just an unfunny jerk. But what's the threshold for deciding Congressman Doe is a bigot as well?

We're giving him the benefit of the doubt because he's on our team, or because he's a Congressman, or both. But we're still discussing this particular stupid joke, rather than the other lame ones he made. Later, when we look at Congressman Doe's record, how "bad" does his voting record have to be before we decide he really doesn't care about womens' issues? Or worse, that he is really a bigot? I contend that the stupid, sexist joke makes us decide that negative much earlier. That's why I think it's a "Duh!" move on the Congressman's part to keep his impromptu jokes about being a chick magnet to himself.

Additionally, with the media and political culture the way it is in America - - Congressman Doe is running a huge risk that his stupid, unfunny joke will not end up circling the globe as a National Enquirer type article: "CONGRESSMAN DOE BRAGS: I HAVE ANY WOMAN I WANT". And then the far right attack Congressman Doe for his moral laxity, with a bunch of grassroots groups astroturfing his office with outraged faxes, phone calls and letters. Then some lazy moron in the MSM starts reporting on Congressman Doe's "sex scandal", and some other lazy pundit will cut and paste the "Doe sex scandal article" without bothering to check if it's remotely true, and so on, and so on, and so on, until Congressman Doe's "sex scandal" is the perfect storm du jour, and Congressman Doe looses his seat a Republican promising to "restore honor and dignity to the Congress".

Yeah, it seems "crazy" that one stupid joke could end up destroying Congressman Doe's career - - but accusing Bill Clinton of rape was "crazy", accusing Hillary Clinton of killing Vince Foster was "crazy", accusing Al Gore of being crazy was "crazy", accusing Gary Condit of killing Chandra Levy was "crazy", accusing Max Cleland and Bob Kerrey and Tom Daschle and John Kerry of being traitors was "crazy"...

Finally, welcome to DU!

[jane_pippin]

19. You're right and I do agree with your assessment....

You are absolutely right about the crazy implications/results that could be spun around by the corporate media and their toadies (as far as I'm concerned, that's pretty offensive in and of itself). I also agree that he probably should have kept his "chick magnet" joke to himself because it was 1. just lame 2. could easily induce a feeding frenzy from one or both sides of the aisle and 3.was arrogant and (at the least if not more) mildly offensive.

Further, I do agree that when deciding if Biden is a sexist or any other kind of ist, it would make sense to look at comments and voting record together. However, we were talking about jokes here and based on that one line I'm still not willing to assume that about Biden. (I will continue to count him as a bad comedian, however). Is it because he's on our side? Probably, but I'm no real fan of his either for what it's worth.

You're also correct that I assume John Doe is a bigot. Well maybe I was too hasty in doing so but it's there so I'll explain why I did:
I did because I really do think there's a difference between telling a joke you knowto be explicitly racist/sexist/etc.-ist and telling a joke you think is wry humor and failing miserably at it.
If you have to look around the room before you tell a joke, you might want to consider not telling that joke. If you tell it anyway, then yeah, I'm going to assume you're a bigot. If you don't look around at all and tell it, I know you're a bigot.
I'll say it again, I think Biden made a stupid comment and I think it was an offensive comment (though I personally was not offended by it). I still don't think the intent was to debase women, though that was the result (and reason for being offended if you were). The intent in John Doe telling explicitly (meaning obviously, not subtle here) racist jokes to groups of any kind of people is to debase and poke fun at the "inferior" (to John Doe) qualities of the group he was mocking/joking about. I still don't think that's what Biden was up to. I think he was trying to endear himself--assuming he even thought about it--to the hipster crowd by making a joke about the status of Senators. It just failed.

Again, I think everything you said makes a lot of sense and I really do agree with you on this--especially your point about what if it isn't just the one joke. But I was talking about the one joke and what my response to it was. Because stupid jokes like this either do point to a larger problem the person has (though I still don't think that's the case with Biden),or can get spun out of control I think these folks would to well to let Jon Stewart, Conan, Bill, hell, even Jay, stick to the joke telling. That will never happen, however, so instead we need to decide for ourselves--ideally--based on what we know of the person telling the offending joke whether it is part of a pattern of bigotry or just a stupid move.

I understand why this offended some people. It is offensive. But my own threshold wasn't crossed by it. In fact, to answer one of your questions that I missed, what would offend me more than a poor joke would be a voting record that reflected a history of anti-woman choices. For me, one vote restricting women's rights would be offensive.

But again, everyone's free to shoot their mouths off (although some are better skilled at it than others), and everyone is free to be pissed about it or not. I guess that's really all I'm saying.

(I'm heading out the door in a few minutes--work--so if you post some more here and I don't respond right away that's why. And thanks for your DU welcome).

[AlGore-08.com]

20. An interesting point

You said:

If you have to look around the room before you tell a joke, you might want to consider not telling that joke. If you tell it anyway, then yeah, I'm going to assume you're a bigot. If you don't look around at all and tell it, I know you're a bigot.

But (to focus on the specifics of Biden again), Biden did tell his joke without looking around at all. There's no way that he could not know that the audience contained women, yet he still said his joke about how "any woman" would be his wife. By that standard shouldn't you "know" he's a bigot?

What's the difference between doing that, and Congressman Doe joking to John Stewart that "I ought to be careful driving through Compton tonight"?

[jane_pippin]

23. Ok...yes...

Right. I see your point. I guess I was thinking in terms of someone who walks into a room with an intent to tell a joke they know is in poor taste, "Gee, I can't wait to tell the folks this one" (which I got out of your example but I may be wrong and if so, my mistake and sorry) vs. Biden who was in an interview and made really stupid an off the cuff remark.

But yes, as it stands by that logic one would have to assume that and I guess it wasn't an example used in the best way.

I noticed your other comments about how a pol going on TDS is different than a regular celebrity or book hawker (sorry I missed that in the OP). I just want to say that I get your point and agree that there really is a difference but that I think it's really kind of sad in a way. In other words, the problem to me generally isn't that Biden or any other pol made a dumb remark on a (smart) comedy program. The problem for me is that the media is so deplorable that the remark takes on a life of it's own (which is some cases may be warranted but those come from people with R's after their names and get ignored--and yeah, I'm being snarky here). Further, it's terrible that a freakin' comedy show is replacing news for anybody. I understand that our media is crap, and I understand that the Daily Show is not crap and is in fact amazing, but that shouldn't mean that the comedy show is forced to carry the weight of a lazy media. As that doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon, I'm choosing to give the benefit of the doubt to the pol who appears on TDS thinking s/he can "relax" on the show, crack a few jokes, pick up a few voters because I know that's exactly what they're trying to do. In some cases they're going to cross my line but again, for me, this wasn't one of those cases. Mostly I just think it makes them look like pandering idiots when they do that anyway.

To answer your question, I think the intents are different. I think Biden was trying to joke that senators don't actually have power but as people making jokes often do, said the opposite thinking it was funny. We all know it wasn't. (Again, my plea to pols who aren't actually funny to leave joke making to the pros comes into play here). If Congressman Doe were make the Compton remark, I would be offended as it is playing into a stereotype thus putting someone down rather than calling someone out. Biden was trying to "call out" himself and sucked at it. But even that implies he put an iota of thought into it and I don't think he did.

Finally, TDS is important. It's one of the few places intelligent questions get asked and really, most of the time, a good conversation happens. Obviously, a lot of stupid things get said too, and they too can have meaning. I think when history books are written about this TV era, TDS will stand out as one of the most important shows of our time. That's what makes this conversation a good one to have and I do want to thank you for bringing this up in the first place. It's just that I personally don't think this Biden remark was the best jumping off point (and I know now that wasn't quite what you were getting at), but I am with you in most of what you're saying.

[question everything]

15. Will have to watch the rerun later this evening

I thought that this week the Daily Show was on reruns, was on Monday.

I think that the problem is, many would like to give a spontaneous reply without thinking about who may get offended. So just from your post I would give Biden the benefit of the doubt that he tried to be funny and failed. Hey, stand-up comics do not hit with every quip.

And I agree with others that he should be judged on his actions. Remember that Congressman from Oregon - don't remember his name - who was so active in his legislative work helping women... until he was found to be a harasser? And at first it put all the feminists in a bind, as it was with Bill Clinton, really. But eventually they realized that personal actions do count.

Good post, though, about jokes in general.

[jbonkowski70]

16. Some responses

1) The joke was most likely meant as hyperbole as part of a conversation about abuse of power, on COMEDY CENTRAL. This is not a serious environment where everything said needs to be carefully studied for the underlying sentiment. It's not even a real press interview, as Jon Stewart will be the first to tell you.

2) You are free to form whatever response you want, but thinking that the joke is about "sexual harassment or rape" is not a response most people will have. You are choosing to see something that is not necessarily there, and declaring it to be the primary point of the joke. This is often called "putting words in someone's mouth" and is not healthy to serious discourse.

3) Politicians who check their words carefully to be sure to offend no one end up coming across as "artificial" or "too politically correct" and then end up offending people. If such a politician gets elected, he or she probably won't try to do anything of significance, for fear of offending someone out there.

4) If you scrutinize any person long enough, and keep your sensitivity high enough, you will find something you don't like. If you hold out for the "perfect candidate" you will never vote for anyone. If it comes down to Biden and another Dem in the primary, I think you will be able to find something you dislike just as much said/done by the other person.

5) I don't like Biden very much, but for things he has unambiguously done/said, not for what I "read between the lines".

[AlGore-08.com]

18. Here's the problem in trying to explain both the general and specific

I was trying to frame a discussion about the general issue of why many people cannot brush a joke off as "just a joke", and we all get bogged down in the specifics of Joe Biden on the Daily Show. I wanted to discuss why it's difficult to judge the intent of a joke, and we're all discussing what Biden's intention was, and whether it's reasonable to question the intention of something that was obviously "just a joke".

But to reply specifically to your first point, a politician appearing on the Daily Show is not a neutral experience, devoid of political meaning. It's not "just an interview on the Daily Show". A pol goes on the Daily Show or Leno or SNL specifically because most young Americans get their political news from comedy shows. The pol is trying to do the opposite of what Congressman Doe's theoretical offensive joke did - - get us to find Congressman Doe an average, likable person so that we'll vote for Doe in the next election. Part of winning viewers over is to talk about politics in broad, general strokes: getting people watching to agree that "fighting terrorism" or "balancing the budget" or some other broad goal is a good thing, and not have to worry about explaining the specifics - - 'cause Jay Leno is spending a lot of time asking Doe about his favorite movie or how Doe met his wife.

(As an aside: the balanced budget is a good example of a policy that's popular in the general but usually unpopular in the specific: almost everybody can agree that a balanced budget is a good thing - - but do you balance the budget by raising taxes or cutting programs? Nobody wants their taxes raised, and there's always somebody who's going to get upset when a program's cut.)

This is why I feel that a pol's appearance on a softball interview show is worth discussing.

[ArkDem]

22. >most young Americans get their political news from comedy shows.

Not the ones that vote.

[Catherine Vincent]

21. That was a good post.

And explanation. Thanks.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

24. Damn it. I guess I'll be taking "The Aristocrats" portion

out of my stump speech.

The only time I'm offended by a joke is when the teller really doesn't know why it's funny.

Or if it's about dead kittens.

[IntravenousDemilo]

25. When I heard it...

...I snickered and thought, "Politicians, eh? I'll bet they all feel that way deep down inside, what with their overinflated sense of importance." For that reason, I actually found Biden's quip kind of a funny way to mock the pretensions of his profession.

Having a fairly catholic sense of humour (and I'm not going to explain what I mean by small-c catholic to anyone out there; you should know what it means by now), I can see the funny side of just about anything. But I do find that even if I find a joke absolutely hilarious, I do censor myself out of consideration for others, particularly as I belong to the only minority group it seems to be all right to oppress with impunity nowadays, and I want to treat others as I'd like to be treated. Sometimes when people claim to be "politically incorrect", it's code for "I'm an arsehole and I don't want to admit it."

I have my limits re self-censorship, though. Remember a few years back, when a writer from the Washington Post (or Times, I forget which) was either fined or suspended, or maybe even fired, for using the word "niggardly" in a column, although it's a perfectly good word that has nothing to do with black people (except maybe for the stingy ones)? I was livid, furious, incensed that the writer's bosses took the side of ignorant folks who couldn't be bothered to open a dictionary, over someone they'd known and worked with for an extended period of time.

Well, as a result, I now use the word "niggardly" as much as I possibly can, even when "cheap", "tight", "miserly", or "parsimonious" will do just as well. I do this mostly to gauge reaction (and character). If the person I'm talking to says I shouldn't use the word "niggardly" because it's bigoted, then I know I'm talking to a twit whose opinion not only is meaningless, but absolutely must be flouted at all costs. It makes no difference if the listener is black, white, or green-and-purple plaid -- I'm an equal opportunity offender. I then provide the actual (completely harmless) definition of "niggardly", and if they still object, I let them know that I find their unreasonable and uncompromising ignorance to be deeply offensive.

'Cause frankly, I really don't give a flying fuck what everyone ELSE thinks the word means; "niggardly" is a perfectly good word and I'm reclaiming it from purgatory.

Sorry I got off topic.

[Bunny]

26. I would like to thank everyone who participated in this thread.

It is a great example of how an issue such as this CAN be discussed calmly and civilly, without deteriorating into a flame war. Well done, and thank you!