46 New Comics From ‘Irregular Galaxy Doods’ That Might Melt Your Heart

People didn't downvote because they acted like they weren't reading the warnings. They downvoted it because it was pointless. It was just "s*x joke funny haha", and then you got surprised why nobody else laughed. It didn't have anything to do with it being offensive.

Read my comment above

This comment has been deleted.

You can make excuses for them all you want, but the fact remains that there are a lot of petty-minded individuals on here who look for reasons to be offended. Oh, and the joke wasn't about séx - there are several alternative punchlines that would have had them clutching their pearls regardless - it was about the double-meaning of 'sick.

Clearly, you took advantage of some connotation that caused you to provide a disclaimer. Whether someone is petty-minded or not, you cannot just say we're looking for reasons to be offended. How do you know? I'm not offended, but I am perplexed by your logic. It's like telling a joke like that in a public space, telling people to cover their ears, and then blaming anyone who didn't. Perhaps you should reflect on how to attract an audience if you want others to agree what you said was funny; whatever you were trying to achieve.

Clearly, you don't understand how a joke is structured. A punchline is just an unexpected twist on an innocuous set-up. In this case, the audience is expecting the 'sick' guy to say something about being ill, but instead his reply is about having an íncestuous thréesome, and the audience realises that the guy is *that* type of sick, and is remarkably honest about it to boot. As I said, the details of the punchline are unimportant so long as it runs counter to the audience's expectations. Now, as for your bit about being perplexed by my logic, I'm confounded by yours. If something is preceded by a very clear trigger warning that what follows may be offensive to some, who's to blame when people see the warning, read the following material anyway and get offended by it? Warnings are there for a reason: if you see a sign saying 'don't walk on the rail tracks, then go ahead and walk on the rail tracks, it's your own stupíd fault if a train hits you.

Having made people from various audiences laugh for a lifetime including revision from my mistakes due to creating awkward situations, I have discovered that the person telling the joke does not decide whether the joke is funny or not--the audience does. You posted a joke on a public website and added a disclaimer because you knew it would not sit well with some. Were you expecting your joke to reach a specific audience when it was out in the open like that? When you were downvoted, you assumed people were offended, but you have no proof of this. They may downvote it because it was either inappropriate or it was at the wrong place at the wrong time. You might be aware that one area of humor is not someone's cup of tea, but that means that the audience reaction is out of your control. Setting up a premise, expecting others to get it, and blaming others when they didn't--especially without proof--is not how building a connection works.

I cannot see my audience here, and I added the disclaimer precisely because I knew it wouldn't sit well with those of a prissy nature. You want proof that people are looking for things to be offended by? After the original joke was hidden on its fourth downvote, at least three more people have seen 'This comment is hidden' but have still clicked on it, still seen the all-caps warning, and have still gone on to read the thing that they have been warned not to read just so they can be offended and downvote it further. When people say that something is inappropriate they mean that they find it offensive: when they say it's in the wrong place at the wrong time, they mean they find it offensive.

I couldn't see my audience, either. Even still, the principles of humor apply the same regardless of environment. Reiterating my earlier analogy, what you did was like yelling at everyone in a public space to cover their ears because you were about to say something offensive, and then blaming anyone reacting who didn't. Were you expecting your stage to be tailored to the joke you made? Did you suppose it would fit on a public website? If you already had an idea that it would not sit well, then of course people were going to think it was inappropriate--that was already apparent the moment you added a disclaimer. As for downvotes, you're saying that their motives are clear below a certain threshold, but the reality is that there is no generalization of why people click hidden comments. For example, I click them because I am curious about why it went against the grain, and learn from how society works. Unless it's supporting tact, I don't want to act like those hidden comments.

So what you're saying is that trigger warnings are a waste of time, and may in fact be counteractive, because people seeing them go on to look anyway. You pretty much confirmed what I've been saying; there are people who look for reasons to be offended. When they are warned that something may be offensive they can't help but look, just so they can say that yes, that offended me. The really funny thing here, though, is that the joke really wasn't offensive at all. A touch off-colour, maybe, but far from offensive. The trigger warning actually primed people who seek reasons to be offended to see it as offensive.

No. I am saying that you already got what's coming the moment you posted that comment, assuming it wouldn't turn out the way it did now. It's very interesting that you were agreeing that your joke was offensive, and yet here you say it wasn't too offensive. Why include the trigger warning at all, if you never thought it was that offensive? Were you trying to catch people getting offended? Were you trying to get a laugh out of someone? Whatever the reason may be, what was the point of it all? You set up a warning, it failed, and now you're making a whole song and dance about what was bound to happen. That is what I consider to be a waste of time.

But my original comment (which has now been reported and removed because...who knows!) didn't say that *I* thought the joke was offensive, it just said 'if you are prudish the following joke is not for you. If you ignore this warning, read the joke and get offended by it, that's on you'. The joke itself was not offensive. Obviously it wasn't one to tell at a kid's party but there was nothing in it that should have adults swooning in horror; it was a simple play on the meaning of being sick - the offence is in the eye of the beholder. And I'm not making a song and dance about it, I'm merely replying to comments that *are* making a song and dance about it. Oh, and the original comment has received more downvotes SINCE BEING DELETED! So now people are getting offended about missing an opportunity to be offended and they are downvoting the message telling them that the comment has been removed. What type of person does that, for crying out loud? It matters not what is said: if people are looking for a reason to be offended they will find one - even when the reason is no longer there.

Ok you've got a point there...

No, that isn't it. The punchline about having an íncestuous thréesome is confirming that the guy is sick, just not the sort of sick you'd expect from the set-up line.