Jokes about Romani people

Some of those "jokes" are borderline psychopathic... 🤦

neonfox12 said:I see that’s the kind of top-tier logic you choose to throw back at me. 🙂

It's just the same tired routine over and over again.

Sam Alvarez4 said:Some of those jokes are bordering on actual psychopathology. 🤦

Sam Alvarez4, you aren't helping matters.

Jamie Davis9 said:It’s just more of the same stuff.
Sam Alvarez4, you aren't really helping here.

Exactly. It's like watching a career politician; instead of actually addressing the core issues, you just start grasping at straws to avoid the real questions. 🤣

neonfox12 said:Exactly, you act just like some career politician, dodging any actual important questions by retreating into mindless fluff instead of giving a real answer. 🤣

And here you are, a total clown, basically existing solely to serve as a punchline for the moderators.
The administration?! 😁

Matthew Anderson said:In that case, we might as well ban all jokes about blondes and Canadians too. And—presto!—here comes the censorship.

Matthew Anderson said:So, what—the moderators get to decide what counts as a joke and what doesn't?

I see no way that's going to end well. 😁

Let me see if I've got this straight—if some user, say XY, gets on my nerves and I post "XY is an idiot" in the politics section, I get a strike. But if I head over to the Humor section and write "XY is an idiot, hahaha, hahaha, haha, aha, ha a"—that's fine because it's technically in the joke thread? It’s hard to believe the moderators are actually going to play judge and jury on whether something is funny just to avoid censoring humor.

I'm just asking for clarity here; it's good to know where the line is drawn.

Nicole Johnson20 said:So, if I’m following this correctly—say some guy on the forum gets under my skin, and I go over to the Politics board and write "that guy is an idiot," I get banned. But then I hop over to the Humor board and type "that guy is an idiot, lol, hahaha, ha!" and suddenly I'm safe because it's in the jokes section? Surely the moderators aren't supposed to be the ones deciding what counts as a joke; we can't just have them censoring humor like that.

I'm just asking for clarification so I know how things work. It's good to be clear.

We're talking about the specific forum where the thread actually lives, so let's not play dumb here. I'm not even going to dignify the rest of this nonsense with a response.

Right, so apparently we expect the moderators to play judge and jury on what qualifies as a joke. Great. This is definitely not the start of censorship at all. 👍

Nicole Johnson20 said:So, if I get this right—say some guy XY gets on my nerves and I go to the politics sub and post "XY is an idiot" and get banned, but then I head over to the Humor sub and post "XY is an idiot, lolololol"—that shouldn't get me banned since it's in the jokes thread, right? I mean, mods shouldn't be deciding what counts as a joke and basically censoring humor.

Just wondering how things work in general, gotta know.

It can't be personal. But, say you find out XY is a Mexican, then you hit the jokes section and post:
A gypsy goes to God to vent:
- "God, please let me be someone else, I'm sick of this gypsy life."
- "Be a Canadian," God says.
- "Not them, they're such a stingy nation."
- "Be a Mexican," God says.
- "No thanks, they're too lazy."
- "Be an Albanian," God says.
- "No way, I hate jam, what kind of Albanian would I be then?"
- "Fine, be a Mexican," God says.
- "Geez, God, why twice for a gypsy?"

See the difference?

Matthew Anderson said:We're talking about which PDF the topic is actually in, so let's not pretend you don't understand what's going on here.

So, we've reached the point where moderators get to play judge and jury on what qualifies as a joke and what doesn't; honestly, this feels like the absolute beginning of outright censorship. 👍

Let's be real, this entire forum is built on a foundation of censorship, so there's really no point in pretending otherwise.

Matthew Anderson said:We are discussing the PDF where the topic is located , so please try not to act clueless. I have zero interest in engaging with any other unconstructive nonsense.

So, apparently, we expect moderators to be the ultimate arbiters of what qualifies as a joke and what doesn't. Great—this is clearly just the beginning of outright censorship. 👍

No, I am not playing dumb; I simply don't follow the logic here. In your quoted post, you claimed something wasn't appropriate for the Politics section but was fine for Jokes—so my question is a direct logical consequence of your own statement.

I was under the impression that a moderator's job was to judge when something crosses the line of the forum rules in general—whether that thing is a joke or a factual statement.

This is exactly like saying a moderator is expected to decide what counts as trolling—which is just a slippery slope toward censorship.

Jacob Williams said:It isn't even personal. It’s more about the approach—say you find out someone is an xy Mexican, so you head over to the jokes section and post something like this:
A gypsy walks up to God to vent:
- "Lord, please let me be someone else; I'm sick of this gypsy life."
- "Fine, be a Canadian," God replies.
- "Not them, they're such a stingy nation."
- "Then be a Mexican," God says.
- "No way, they're too lazy."
- "Alright, be an Albanian," God offers.
- "Ugh, no, I hate jam, how could I possibly be an Albanian?"
- "Okay, then be a Mexican," God decides.
- "Well, why'd you take two tries to get it right, you gypsy?"

See the distinction?

That is exactly how people try to play the system. I've seen it happen on this forum several times now—the moderators don't take kindly to anyone attempting to skirt the rules, and frankly, they usually shut those attempts down immediately, no matter how much someone tries to disguise their intent.

Jamie Davis9 said:And here you are, acting like a comedian—honestly, it feels like you were just manufactured to help the moderators deal with all the jokes.
administration?! 😁

Jamie Davis9 said:Let's be real: this entire forum is built on censorship, so let's not pretend otherwise.

Nicole Johnson20 said:No, I’m not playing dumb; I just don't follow the logic. In the quoted post, you claimed something wasn't appropriate for Politics but was fine for Jokes—so my question is a direct logical consequence of that reasoning.

I always operated under the assumption that a moderator's job is to judge when a post crosses the line of the forum rules, regardless of whether it's a joke or a serious statement.

It's essentially like saying you expect a moderator to decide what constitutes trolling, which is just the first step toward censorship.

This is truly appalling.

Nicole Johnson20 said:No, I’m not playing dumb—I just don't follow the logic. You mentioned in your quote that something doesn't belong in Politics but fits in Jokes, so my question follows right from that.

Alright, let me clarify.

I totally get why a joke about Roma wouldn't fly in an American politics forum, since it could unnecessarily stir up tension on certain topics. But I don't see any reason to scrub that same joke from a Jokes sub, which—by its very nature—has to allow for dark humor.

Censoring humor, no matter how bad it is, is basically the gateway to full-blown censorship. Once you start, you'll inevitably end up in a loop where someone is demanding we delete jokes about blondes, Canadians, or whatever else.

neonfox12 said:This is genuinely appalling.

It is frankly disturbing that
and let me just pose the question again: is posting a photo of one's own backside, marked with an arrow pointing toward the name of a specific individual or any member of ANY group, considered spam, or is it just being a complete jerk?
that seems to be the fundamental issue with this entire forum we find ourselves on, and quite frankly, it is the only thing I care about right now.

Nicole Johnson20 said:So, let me get this straight—if some random guy on the Politics board gets under my skin and I post "User XY is a moron," I get banned. But if I hop over to the Humor board and write "User XY is an idiot, lol, hahaha, haaa"—it’s fine because it’s in the jokes section? Since when do moderators act like comedy critics deciding what counts as a joke? We can't just censor humor.

Wait, since when do people go to the Jokes subforum to actually chat or trade insults? To me, that board is just a dumping ground for memes you find online or maybe some original one-liners about made-up characters or fake scenarios. I haven't seen a single thread where users are actually having a conversation there... unless I totally missed a whole discussion thread where everyone's just chatting.

Look, obviously if you walk into the Politics section and call another user a dummy or an idiot, you're getting flagged. Attacking other members is against the rules. Period. That's the rule: don't attack the users.

Jamie Davis9 said:It’s honestly pretty unsettling, the way
so let me circle back to my original question: is posting a photo of one's own backside with an arrow pointing toward the name of a specific individual or a member of ANY group considered spam, or is it just a tasteless joke?
That strikes me as the fundamental question regarding the culture of this community, and frankly, it’s the only thing I care about right now.

Look, sure, it’s an insult to that person, but where in any decent joke does it involve targeting a real human being?

Matthew Anderson said:So, we're opening a whole thread just because some joke from 2006 is controversial now?

No, the issue isn't the age of the joke; it’s that it isn't even a joke. I don't care if it was written years ago—this particular "joke" is staring everyone in the face today.
Would you treat an artistic mural painted on a wall across the street back in 2006 the same way you'd treat a hateful slogan like "Mexican on a tree"?
Do you see the distinction?

Jamie Davis9 said:It’s actually the opposite. Nobody is asking to shut the thread down; they're asking for it to be moderated. In a three-page thread, there are two instances where someone claims a Gypsy is nothing but filth, and then a third instance claiming it takes nine months for a Gypsy woman to deliver trash.

Honestly, I'd be very interested to hear the site administration weigh in on where the boundaries lie, if any exist at all, and who exactly those rules apply to.

Look, that is still technically a joke, as repulsive and brutal as it may be—simply because it offers some sort of punchline or twist. That "joke" equating a Gypsy to excrement is purely moronic; it can only be appreciated by idiots. Humor requires at least a rudimentary level of intelligence.

Jacob Williams said:What was posted above is just stupid. It isn't funny, not even a little bit (to me, and clearly to you as well).

But it’s not as if people don't tell similar jokes about others, perhaps even worse ones.

-How does the average Mexican reach the lady's bedroom?
-By rape!

-What is a little Jew doing on the roof of a crematorium in a camp?
-Waiting for his mom and dad.
-And what is the moral of the story?
-Love knows no state of matter.

-What do you get when you cross a Black man with an octopus?
-I have no idea. What?
-I don't know either, but he picks cotton like crazy.

Do you follow? None of these jokes are particularly funny to me (even if they are provocative enough to elicit a laugh), but I recognize they are extremely brutal and politically incorrect. Especially the ones mocking someone's suffering or genocide, but what is the alternative?

Either ban them entirely or allow them to exist however they want. Otherwise, you're forcing moderators to act as judges of whether a joke is "funny enough" to avoid being deleted or having the author punished.

You missed the mark. The second and third examples are dark humor—disturbing, yes, but actual humor—and dark humor is supposed to be edgy.
The first "joke" falls squarely into the category of saying a Gypsy is just filth.

Matthew Anderson said:In that case, we might as well scrap all those old jokes about blondes and Canadians altogether. And just like that—poof—there goes the censorship.

Hold on a second—are you actually kidding me right now? Is this some kind of joke?

What exactly does a person stand to gain by defecating in a sheep's pasture?

the average Gypsy

I find myself chuckling at that one. Truly.

That’s actually quite amusing.
Haha.
Ha.
Well, here we go again. One of those moments where you just have to sit back, take a breath, and witness the inevitable unfolding of things. It’s almost predictable at this point, isn't it? Just one of those sighs that carries more weight than any actual word ever could.
Ah...
a

neonfox12 said:I beg to differ. You seem to be overlooking how crucial humor—specifically its sharper, more offensive edges—is when it comes to driving the momentum of this entire discussion.

Let’s be honest here: the only reason you're actually upset is because the comments are directed at you personally. It was clearly stated from the jump that dark humor doesn't play favorites—it targets everyone equally. It’s indiscriminate by design.

If you’re going to make claims like that, you really ought to be the one doing the heavy lifting when it comes to studying history—that’s exactly why I put the question to you in the first place. It wasn't just Jews and Rom people who were targeted by the Nazi regime during World War II. They didn't stop there; Mexicans, Canadians, and Mexicans were also victims of that regime's brutality. History is far more complex than a single narrative suggests.

No, those are my favorites.

Hold on a second—do you honestly think this is some kind of joke?

What does a man get when he defecates sheep dung?

the average Gypsy

That's actually quite amusing.

That’s actually quite funny.
Haha.
Ha.
Well... there we have it.
I suppose I should start somewhere. It seems we are all gathered here, waiting for something to happen, though I suspect most of us already know exactly how this will play out. There is a certain predictable rhythm to these things, isn't there? A sense of déjà vu that settles in before the first word is even spoken. I find myself sitting here, staring at the screen, wondering if anyone actually intends to say something of substance, or if we are simply going through the motions of digital interaction for the sake of avoiding our own thoughts. I have spent many years observing patterns—in business, in politics, and certainly in online discourse—and the pattern here feels familiar. Quiet, expectant, and perhaps a little bit futile. But, I am here. Let's see where this leads.
a

Matthew Anderson said:Who says? Honestly, I’ve heard that exact same line used when talking about Black Americans. So, what now? What's the move?

Which version actually lands better from a comedic standpoint? 🍿

neonfox12 said:Not quite.

My grandfather was killed at the end of the war during those mass executions, despite the fact that he never once picked up a weapon or engaged in any political maneuvering. To this day, no one even knows where his remains were laid to rest. It’s clear that when I present you with such a heavy, undeniable reality, this is the level of "argument" you feel the need to throw back at me. 🙂

Well, if you’re claiming to be an indirect victim of some bureaucratic meltdown in D.C., then I suppose you have a valid excuse for being so incredibly dim-witted.🎉

Exactly—I was going to say that the joke about the Mexican on a tree and the rapist is right up there with that one about the crap, but this second one doesn't even touch that level. I honestly don't get how people can't see the distinction—and then they have the nerve to wash their hands of it, acting like we shouldn't be the ones deciding what counts as a joke. If they remove that tier of humor, they’re basically claiming it leads to the censorship of all jokes and dark humor.

bluecyclist64 said:Look, even if it's repulsive and brutal, it's still technically a joke—mostly because there's actually a punchline involved. That "joke" comparing a Gypsy to a pile of crap is just pure idiocy, and frankly, only an idiot would find any merit in it. You need at least a shred of intelligence to appreciate actual humor.

It’s perfectly obvious to me that it's intended as a joke, but my point is simply that nobody on this forum would get away with calling Jews trash without facing consequences.
not even Mexicans, 🙂
which, if we're being honest from a standard moderation perspective, is somewhat 🥱.
well, I suppose it's just that kind of mindset that really gets under my skin.

bluecyclist64 said:Hold on a second—are you actually trying to tell this as a joke?

I’ve heard it before, but personally, I don't find it funny at all. It's pretty weak. Then again, some people seem to get a kick out of it. So, what are we supposed to do about that?

Nicole Johnson20 said:Honestly, I was just about to point out that while that one joke about a Mexican on a tree and a rapist is definitely bottom-of-the-barrel, this other one isn't quite in that same gutter. I don't get how people can miss the distinction and then act all high and mighty, as if we shouldn't be the ones deciding what counts as a joke. It’s like they think if you remove that specific level of trashy humor, it’s somehow leading to the censorship of all jokes and dark comedy.

But who actually gets to decide which category a joke falls into? 🍿