Estonia’s GasTerm Eesti uses Auschwitz photo to promote gas company

by , under Enrique

Believe it or not, the Estonian gas company, GasTerm Eesti, published on August 23 on their website a photograph of the Auschwitz concentration camp, with the infamous inscription Arbeit macht frei, or work makes you free. The caption of the published photo read: “Gas heating – flexible, convenient, and effective.”

GasTerm Eesti has removed the offensive picture and issued an apology, according to Haaretz.

Writes the Jerusalem Post: “The next day the photo was removed from the company’s website and an apology was posted there. Company director Sven Linros said, according to DzD.ee portal, “Hitler killed himself because he got a gas bill … a lot of people laugh at this, but I do not.”

Is anti-Semitism alive and kicking in Estonia?

    • JusticeDemon

      Jssk

      I wouldnt judge an entire nation based on some gas companys joke

      There is nothing in this article that “judges an entire nation”. That is a fiction of your own creation.

      even though some can find it offensive

      Do you find it offensive?

      Just pure anti-estonian propaganda.

      So there was no Waffen SS veteran rally in Sinimae and all of the RT footage purporting to show this event was a mock up, just like the 1969 lunar landing?

      Time to ask your doctor for a stronger prescription.

  1. khr

    While the advertisement may be a sign of anti semitism, I suspect somebody just didn’t think. The amount of stupidity may be astonishing, but it helps to remember stupidity is a natural resource that never runs out.

    • JusticeDemon

      It has to be more than stupidity. What is the specific and only connection between that picture and gas?

      M/S Estonia
      Happy Bubbles deep sea diving club

  2. Jssk

    There is nothing in this article that “judges an entire nation”. That is a fiction of your own creation.

    “Is anti-Semitism alive and kicking in Estonia?”

    Do you find it offensive?

    I dont, so what? are you offended because im not offended? I understand some people do find it offensive though.

    So there was no Waffen SS veteran rally in Sinimae

    I dont see estonians who fought against soviet union with nazi Germany as nazis. And to add, 20th Waffen SS grenadier division was mostly conscripted.

    That report was obivious attempt of blackpainting

    • JusticeDemon

      Jssk

      “Is anti-Semitism alive and kicking in Estonia?”

      You think that this question “judges an entire nation”? How?

      The question was obviously a fair one, given the incident in question, the flippant reported response of the person responsible, and the fact that the advertisement in question was hastily withdrawn.

      The real source of your sudden hypersensitivity to “judgement” is revealed when you admit that you do not see anything offensive in referring to Auschwitz as a vehicle for selling gas. This makes it abundantly clear what kind of person you are, Jssk.

      At least you now admit that a Waffen SS veteran rally was indeed organised in Sinimae, so that rather undermines your assertion that this was “pure anti-estonian propaganda”. The excuse that “they were only following orders” is familiar enough, though. We can also draw our own conclusions about the nature of that alleged “conscription” from the fact that the individuals concerned are still attending memorial rallies.

      I suppose it was predictable that a story like this would flush out the Nazi psychopaths.

  3. JM

    Anti-Semitism in Estonia is actually the least among the Baltic States and is nowhere near the level of say, Hungary, this is largely due to the country never having as historically large Jewish community as Latvia and Lithuania. Nevertheless, cases like this do happen, though I hardly see how posting this article constitutes “judging an entire nation” as someone suggested. I think most people who comment here know better than to judge an entire nation or people based on this. At least I would hope so. That would be like saying all Finns are racist just because of some politicians’ writings or like judging all Israelis because Israel deported Sub-Saharan Africans from their country as they did recently.

    The Hitler joke about the gas bill I’ve actually heard in Canada as well. Make of that what you will.

  4. khr

    It has to be more than stupidity. What is the specific and only connection between that picture and gas?

    The connection is certainly clear. What I meant that it does not necessarily mean as much as one could think. A “joke” that probably felt funny in a group of friends after a bottle of vodka is a great deal less funny when posted to a public website.

  5. Jssk

    You think that this question “judges an entire nation”? How?

    So a gas company makes a joke on their website, does that indicate antisemitism is widespread/doing well in Estonia?

    The real source of your sudden hypersensitivity to “judgement” is revealed when you admit that you do not see anything offensive in referring to Auschwitz as a vehicle for selling gas. This makes it abundantly clear what kind of person you are, Jssk.

    Its a joke. Bad one but i dont personally find it offensive.

    The excuse that “they were only following orders” is familiar enough, though. We can also draw our own conclusions about the nature of that alleged “conscription” from the fact that the individuals concerned are still attending memorial rallies.

    War veterans tend to be respected. They just sided with the lesser evil (for them). After Germany saw they were getting overrun on the eastern front they set a general draft in Estonia.

    I suppose it was predictable that a story like this would flush out the Nazi psychopaths.

    Yeah, im a nazi because i dont get offended by holocaust jokes.

    • JusticeDemon

      Jssk

      So a gas company makes a joke on their website, does that indicate antisemitism is widespread/doing well in Estonia?

      The article did not say that antisemitism is widespread/doing well. It said that antisemitism is alive (opposite of dead) and kicking (opposite of inactive). This has nothing to do with Estonia as a whole. That was your invention and your deliberate exaggeration. Your outrage is both synthetic and transparent, and you express it because you have something to hide about yourself. The clue is here:

      i dont personally find it offensive.

      This says a great deal about what kind of person you are. Please share with us an example of something that you do “find offensive” by filling in the blank:

           It’s not offensive to make jokes about murdering two million innocent people, but it is offensive to ___________.

      They just sided with the lesser evil (for them).

      So waging an agressive war that killed 20 million Russians and implementing a separate genocidal programme that killed 6 million innocent non-combatants merely because of their religion and ancestry was a “lesser evil”, as viewed from the perspective of a memorial rally held years later? A lesser evil than what? The point about the draft is hardly relevant years after the service has ended. It is one thing to be forced to participate in an immoral undertaking, but quite another to celebrate it after that coercion has ended.

      Yeah, im a nazi because i dont get offended by holocaust jokes.

      No, you are a psychopath because you lack the empathy to grasp why such jokes are offensive in the first place and why it is important not to cause such offence.

      You are a Nazi for your general authoritarian approach to public policy.

  6. tp1

    Please share with us an example of something that you do “find offensive” by filling in the blank:
    It’s not offensive to make jokes about murdering two million innocent people, but it is offensive to ___________.

    I can easily fill that up:

    It’s not offensive to make jokes about murdering two million innocent people, but it is offensive to murder two million innocent people.

    In my opinion everything can be joked about. I don’t like the idea about a world that is so serious that it can’t handle jokes.

    There have always been jokes about every nationalities etc. I remember when I was in school we laughed about jew jokes, somali jokes, romani jokes and in similar way we laughed at jokes about finns. It’s a sick idea that some people should have a priviledge over others that we can’t joke about them.

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      We already established some time ago that you suffer from a corresponding psychopathy.

      It’s not offensive to make jokes about murdering two million innocent people, but it is offensive to murder two million innocent people.

      This further demonstrates the point. What kind of person characterises the crime of genocide as merely offensive?

      …in similar way we laughed at jokes about finns…

      Give us some examples that focus on the deaths of Finns in large numbers.

      Just to get you started:

      What’s blue, white and yellow, and screams a lot?

                  A mustard gas attack on Kalevan kisat.

      Are you laughing?

  7. tp1

    1) Your joke is not funny when it’s written in English
    2) That kind of jokes are so used, that they are not funny anymore

    Remember, I was a kid 30 years ago. Please put a bit more effort to your next one.

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      Not funny, eh?

      Well, now it’s your turn. Let’s hear some of the jokes that you made about killing millions of innocent Finns.

      Tell them in Finnish if you like.

      Surely you aren’t claiming some privileged status that takes the humour out of those rib-tickling genocide jokes when the victims are Finns? Shouldn’t industrial slaughter of people just like you be just as much a cause for hilarity as the same fate suffered by any nationality?

    • tp1

      So you don’t understand the difference between a joke about something that has already happened, and a threat that something might happen in future?

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      Now who is the coward? Stop trying to dodge the challenge. The time frame is irrelevant and you know it.

      Tell us a joke about a nuclear attack on Helsinki. It’s easy enough to visualise the mangled corpses and radiation burns.

  8. tp1

    It’s again pretty difficult to answer because Enrique keeps deleting every message where I prove what your tactics are.

    I would understand if Enrique cencors messages which are against rules or law, but he actually deletes also messages which he simply doesn’t like. That is quite low.

    I don’t know why I am even writing this message, because it will most propably be deleted.

    Enrique, you are grown man, so could you even try to live up to that. I mean, be a man, not a coward.

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      It’s more than likely that you were simply trolling.

      We are still waiting for your jokes about mass murder of Finns.

      Vai oletko niin tiukkapipoinen, ettet ymmärrä sellaista huumoria?

  9. tp1

    tp1It’s more than likely that you were simply trolling.We are still waiting for your jokes about mass murder of Finns.Vai oletko niin tiukkapipoinen, ettet ymmärrä sellaista huumoria?

    As I already told once (but Enrique deleted my message):

    There has not been any mass murder of Finns, so there can be no jokes about that either. For joke to work as a joke, it has to base on something, maybe a real event or some stereotype.

    But let’s take an example from the schoolshootings. This joke have to be told in Finnish, because one part of the joke requires Finnish language and won’t work in any other language:

    – Miksi Pekka-Eric Auvinen myöhästyi koulusta?
    – Tuli mutka matkaan.

    And this one should work in English too:

    – What did Pekka-Eric order from bar?
    – 8 shots for others and one for himself

    These were funny 🙂

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      For joke to work as a joke, it has to base on something, maybe a real event or some stereotype.

      Only someone lacking imagination could try to impose such constraints on humour. None of the four jokes listed on the Wikipedia entry for World’s funniest joke fits your absurdly narrow definition. The first merely requires a lethal action that can be recognised by its sound heard over the telephone, the second is based on the absolute character of a well-known fictional and uniquely individual character, the third reflects the point that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the last is a simple play on words.

      The real reason why you don’t want to tell a joke about the mass murder of Finns is that genocide is no laughing matter. The GasTerm Eesti advertisement, the flippant remark of the company’s CEO and your efforts to justify such matters as permissible humour are all forms of holocaust denial. Laughing at thousands of Finnish sports fans dying in agony from mustard gas poisoning or hundreds of thousands of Finns blown to pieces or dying an agonising death from radiation poisoning would not appeal to your sense of humour, but you can laugh at the systematic extermination of Jews in a manner no less horrifying. This says everything we need to know about your most fundamental character. You are always telling us that Finns should only care about other Finns and that the human dignity of others is unimportant. This is how your basic lack of empathy affects your sense of humour, and it will betray you every time.

      I take it that you did not lose any members of your family in Jokela, and it is quite obvious that you have no empathy for those who did, but how do you feel about the freedom of speech of the 16 year-old boy in Maaninka? I don’t recall any Hompanzee campaign on his behalf.

  10. Jssk

    The real reason why you don’t want to tell a joke about the mass murder of Finns is that genocide is no laughing matter. The GasTerm Eesti advertisement, the flippant remark of the company’s CEO and your efforts to justify such matters as permissible humour are all forms of holocaust denial. Laughing at thousands of Finnish sports fans dying in agony from mustard gas poisoning or hundreds of thousands of Finns blown to pieces or dying an agonising death from radiation poisoning would not appeal to your sense of humour, but you can laugh at the systematic extermination of Jews in a manner no less horrifying.

    So its holocaust denial if you make jokes about holocaust? Thats denial at its finest, making something a huge taboo. Laughing at a joke like “hitler killed himself because he revceived the gas bill” doesnt mean you laugh at jews being killed. Are you being dumb on purpose?

    Also, holocaust denial is not a crime here. I dont see why holocaust should be a taboo either.

    • Mark

      Jssk

      So its holocaust denial if you make jokes about holocaust? Thats denial at its finest, making something a huge taboo. Laughing at a joke like “hitler killed himself because he revceived the gas bill” doesnt mean you laugh at jews being killed. Are you being dumb on purpose?

      As usual, you refuse to see the big picture. Of course the thing about Hitler and the gas bill is funny, if it’s a joke told down the pub, totally removed from politics and the public and historical place, and when the laughter is a wry laughter, knowing that, okay, some jokes are close to the bone and test the limits of acceptability. However, if a stand-up comedian threw that joke into a routine, you’d say he/she was definitely scraping the barrel. If a gas company used it in a public advert, you would say that they have totally lost it!

      That’s perspective, Jssk.

  11. tp1

    The real reason why you don’t want to tell a joke about the mass murder of Finns is that genocide is no laughing matter.

    Don’t you come here tell me my reasons for anything. The only reasons holocaust jokes are considered funny, is because it has actually happened. If there never was a holocaust, then nobody would have ever made up any jokes about it. And ofcourse people who had their relatives lost their lives in holocaust would never find those jokes funny, but that doesn’t mean that those jokes should be forbidden from everyone.

    I feel very sorry and very bad for the people who were killed in Jokela. You have no right to claim that I don’t feel empathy for them. But I can still make a difference between a joke and reality.

    One can never tell a joke, which would be funny for EVERY single people in the world. Same applies here. Some thinks joke is funny and some get offended by it. But still, it’s no reason to forbid the jokes.

    What comes to that gas company, it’s very very stupid to put something like that in public. I can’t imagine how someone could be that stupid. But it’s totally naive to even try to claim that they did that because they are anti-semitic. They simply were stupid enough think that kind of joke would be fit.

    There has also been incidents where Burger King and Nokia have used the controversial sentence “Jedem das Seine” in their ads. Not very good publicity but still there is no doubt that they would have meant to offend anyone.

    • Mark

      tp1

      And ofcourse people who had their relatives lost their lives in holocaust would never find those jokes funny, but that doesn’t mean that those jokes should be forbidden from everyone.

      Agreed.

      I feel very sorry and very bad for the people who were killed in Jokela. You have no right to claim that I don’t feel empathy for them. But I can still make a difference between a joke and reality.

      If you can make this distinction, then you can also accept that therea are acceptable and unceptable places to make jokes? Comedians often smile to themselves about the eternal popularity of ‘knob jokes’, jokes that are just plain crude. Even quite classy comedians can ‘visit the classics’ with a couple of knob jokes and get away with it, but they are not ‘sunday lunch’ jokes.

      One can never tell a joke, which would be funny for EVERY single people in the world. Same applies here. Some thinks joke is funny and some get offended by it.

      Agreed.

      What comes to that gas company, it’s very very stupid to put something like that in public.

      Stupid? I’d say it goes way beyond stupid. I mean, someone telling a crap or tasteless joke in the pub or in the canteen on the spur of the moment can be forgiven as just poor taste or even a lack of social awareness, but a gas company putting an advert like that out, and imagining that even for a second that that would be acceptable really does raise a lot of questions.

      The key thing here with jokes which you are not talking about is power. Jokes are about being funny, about feeding on our fears, taboos, and general idiosyncracies, but they are also about in-groups and out-groups. You cannot ignore that.

      Jokes are made to humiliate people, to keep them in their place, to make the ‘in-group’ feel good about their own position (I’ve done research on just this topic that confirms just how strong this is). Jokes can be put-downs. So the real question is whether a joke about Jews dying is funny because it’s testing a taboo (reverence in the house please, we are talking serious human misbehaviour), or whether it is reviving a subtle yet really sense that they are ‘fair game’, because they are still an ‘out-group’.

      In fact, the situation nowadays is that some people hate the very idea that we have to be PC at all. They refuse to accept that history has any lessons or that they should feel any hesitation in picking on the kid in the playground with the funny hat and curly side-locks. And jokes like this can very easily feed into this mentality, this arrogance and complacence that comes with being in the ‘in-group’, and doing everything possible to take advantage of that and keep the other folks down. And it’s even supposed to be funny, and if you stop laughing, you are obviously one of those namby pamby liberals. How easy it is to use macho crap to reinforce bullying. Laugh or your not one of us!

      Do you see what I’m getting at tp1?

  12. tp1

    Do you see what I’m getting at tp1?

    Yes, but I just partly disagree. I still approve that people should be allowed to tell jokes, even if they offend someone. And your example of playground kid is not comparable, because that’s something I would call bullying instead of joking. And bullying is never OK.

    And I also disagree on your comment about joking is being done to keep people in their place. That simply is not true.

    I have nothing against jews, so why would I tell jew jokes in order to “keep them in their place”?

    • Mark

      tp1

      I still approve that people should be allowed to tell jokes, even if they offend someone.

      And I’m not asking you to disapprove of that.

      And your example of playground kid is not comparable, because that’s something I would call bullying instead of joking. And bullying is never OK.

      And yet that was exactly my point, that humour can be used to bully. Saying its not humour, but bullying is just a silly way of trying to get away from the very negative aspects of humour and how it is used.

      If you want to know more about the link, follow this, or this, or this

      And I also disagree on your comment about joking is being done to keep people in their place. That simply is not true.

      The last journal citation I provided is a paper that specifically describes teasing as “an expression of status dominance and a mechanism for promoting conformity within groups. Much teasing occurs as a power-oriented interaction in which bullies dominate unassertive children, but there are also playful and beneficial aspects of teasing.”

      I have nothing against jews, so why would I tell jew jokes in order to “keep them in their place”?

      Well, if you are down at that Homma village, you might be telling Jew jokes in order to keep your place! 🙂

  13. tp1

    Well, if you are down at that Homma village, you might be telling Jew jokes in order to keep your place!

    I have told earlier (also when I used name Farang) that I have never been involved with Homma. Is that just lack of your understanding or what?

    • Mark

      tp1

      I have told earlier (also when I used name Farang) that I have never been involved with Homma. Is that just lack of your understanding or what?

      So where do you hang out? Something very clearly feeds into your beliefs as you are spouting pretty much word for word the fare of Right Wing radicals. Are you linked to political groups or forums?

    • Mark

      So you have nothing to say about the discussion on humour anymore? So, when you are caught out blatantly proposing an idea that has no credibility and is easily dismissed with just a handful of scholarly articles, you simply choose to ignore the fact you ever mentioned it? 😀

  14. tp1

    Mark

    tp1So where do you hang out? Something very clearly feeds into your beliefs as you are spouting pretty much word for word the fare of Right Wing radicals. Are you linked to political groups or forums?

    That is a pretty weird question. Do you really think that persons opinions are from some sources? How can anyone think like that.

    I don’t hang in any political forums, this Migrant Tales is propably the closest to political forum that I’m involved in.

    My opinions are my own, which I have formed just by taking a look of what is happening in Finland and in Europe.

    • Mark

      tp1

      My opinions are my own, which I have formed just by taking a look of what is happening in Finland and in Europe.

      I doubt that. Do you discuss this with friends? What is your avenue into European or even Finnish life? The media? It is perhaps here that you have absorbed most of your ideas.

      Do you really think that persons opinions are from some sources? How can anyone think like that.

      The key thing with you tp1 is that you do NOT think through your ideas. Time and again it has been pointed out on here how you shoot from the hip, deal in massive generalisations, and yet still insist on following the same old tired agenda. All our opinions are informed by various memberships that we enjoy. I’m a member of the immigrant community and I’ve worked directly with immigrants in the process of integration into a new country, so my persective is shaped by that. I’ve also worked in the public sector and see from that perspective the efforts that are made to support citizens across Finland’s broad spectrum of circumstances, as well as understanding better the general framework of principles that are put forward to guide those services and the policy discussions. I guess it’s this perspective that leaves me thinking time and again that you insist on having a pub discussion about immigration but are nevertheless deluded into thinking that such a discussion and the conclusions you come to can realistically serve as public policy.

      Ever heard of the term ‘ham-fisted’? 🙂

  15. tp1

    Mark

    So you have nothing to say about the discussion on humour anymore? So, when you are caught out blatantly proposing an idea that has no credibility and is easily dismissed with just a handful of scholarly articles, you simply choose to ignore the fact you ever mentioned it?

    No, that is not the case. The issue with joke-factor was already handled, there is nothing more to add to it.

    You have your own opinion and I have my own. I have already explained all the aspects how I think that people should have right to tell jokes even if they offend someone.

    And also I voiced my view that this gas company was not being anti-semitic or offending anyone on purpose. They were just stupid for not thinking that it is not appropriate to make an ad like that. Still it’s their right but it most propably causes negative publicity.

    Why do you think that people should just keep on arguing about something, which clearly is a matter of opinion? You think that you can somehow make the other persons to admit that your opinion is better? Sensible person understands this and knows when there is nothing more to discuss. And this is the case here. There is nothing more from my side for this joke-issue. That doesn’t mean that I have “lost” a debate.

    • Mark

      tp1

      No, that is not the case. The issue with joke-factor was already handled, there is nothing more to add to it.

      Sorted, eh? Except that you have been shown to be completely wrong in your basic assumption. Nothing more to add?

      That’s right, just repeat your position and don’t leave it open to any criticism for one second. You offer your views as coupe de tats, as if they are so powerful in their own right that they cannot possibly be challenged or questioned.

      They were just stupid for not thinking that it is not appropriate to make an ad like that.

      Stupid? There was a little more to this than just ‘stupid’, tp1. Were the Nazis just ‘stupid’ to gas the jews in the first place? At what point exactly do you start to hold these people to account for their ‘stupidity’ and start describing it for what it is – blatant anti-semiticism. It’s not about finding the joke funny, it’s about recognising that they serve a varied customer base, many of whom would be Jewish, and anybody can tell you that they would just not find it funny.

      You think that you can somehow make the other persons to admit that your opinion is better?

      Well, actually yes! But that’s perhaps because I have worked for so many years in the scientific and academic fields, where that kind of constructive and critical exchange has brought slow and steady progress in most fields of study.

      Sensible person understands this and knows when there is nothing more to discuss.

      And you start to trot this nonsense out typically when you have been caught out in a blatanly false proposition. We’ve done this before, tp1, and you have, when dragged into doing it, finally accepted where your comments have been shown to be unsubstantiated or false. Are we going to go down that path yet again?

      That doesn’t mean that I have “lost” a debate.

      It’s not about winning or losing, it’s about credibility and trying to operate according to verifiable knowledge. If you come out with nonsense saying that humour cannot be used to exert power over or within a group, and trying to dismiss it as something else called ‘bullying’, and you are shown to be completely out of step with scientific research, then you are obliged to hold your head up and accept that perhaps you should revisit your opinions – i.e. look beyond that beer fog that you usually talk behind.

    • Mark

      tp1

      That doesn’t mean that I have “lost” a debate.

      A debate is where two protaganists examine the claims of the other and respond with either agreement or disagreement followed by explanation. Now, seeing as I offered those links to support my criticism of comment about humour and in-group/out-groups, which you flatly rejected as being true, then I would assume that you would make at least a cursory visit to those links and respond with something.

      That would be a debate.

      However, you rarely follow the rules of debate, which is why I’m not surprised the moderators assign to the trash for being simply trolling. I.e. giving your opinion repeatedly and failing to address direct challenges to those claims.

  16. tp1

    A debate is where two protaganists examine the claims of the other and respond with either agreement or disagreement followed by explanation. Now, seeing as I offered those links to support my criticism of comment about humour and in-group/out-groups, which you flatly rejected as being true, then I would assume that you would make at least a cursory visit to those links and respond with something.

    No Mark.

    You introduce an idea that one could debate of whether or not something is funny for certain people. That is ridiculous idea. You can’t argue about that, you can’t tell a person that “this is funny”. People find funny things that they just feel that are funny. You can’t dictate that to people.

    Think!

  17. Mark

    tp1

    No Mark.

    Ugh,…yes, tp1. If someone refutes with scientific evidence a direct claim that you have made in this debate, then you have a duty, if you are not a troll, to weigh up that evidence presented to you and to comment on it. Not to change the subject, not to fudge the issue, not to try to deflect or distract or even to start making it personal. But simply to address the point that was made.

    You have failed to do so. You show the clear tendency of a troll, not of someone who is genuinely interested in a debate.

    You introduce an idea that one could debate of whether or not something is funny for certain people. That is ridiculous idea.

    Those brain cells are starting to misfire, aren’t they? I guess you barely noticed. On this matter of what is funny for certain people, you made the statement:

    One can never tell a joke, which would be funny for EVERY single people in the world. Same applies here. Some thinks joke is funny and some get offended by it.

    To which I replied ‘Agreed’. End of!

    So really, why you are harking back at this as if it was at the heart of our disagreement is beyond me.

    The issue that tripped you up was to understand that humour is not just ‘what makes people laugh, but on a much more basic level, something that is used to create and maintain different statuses. Humour can be used to ridicule people, and keep them in their place.

    And I mentioned this because it is bloody relevant to this issue of whether a gas company can make jokes that are absolutely guaranteed to offend its Jewish customers.

    So this is the nub of our current disagreement. It started with your statement:

    And I also disagree on your comment about joking is being done to keep people in their place. That simply is not true.

    You claimed it is not true. That’s a very specific claim, to which I decided to respond with clear evidence from studies that explore exactly this topic.

    Did you respond yet? Nope. As usual when presented with a real debate, you flap and foam like a demented heron landing on hot tarmac!

  18. tp1

    Mark

    And I mentioned this because it is bloody relevant to this issue of whether a gas company can make jokes that are absolutely guaranteed to offend its Jewish customers.

    You claim that this company made that ad for this reason: “To offend jewish and keep them in their place”

    I claim that this company made that ad for this reason: “They thought it would be funny”

    It’s not a rocket science to figure out which one of us is right. Even if we can’t get into their heads, we can just use common sense and think which one is more propable. Would you really bet your money on that company would on purpose do something that would offend it’s customers and other people? What would be the odds for that?

    • Mark

      You claim that this company made that ad for this reason: “To offend jewish and keep them in their place”

      That’s taking two points I made and putting them together and getting something totally different. First, we don’t know why the company made the ad or what rationale made them think it was acceptable. We can only talk about what we think is acceptable. I haven’t spoken about why they have done it.

      My point about jokes being used to keep people in a specific status is more to do with the background of why this joke would be funny. It’s unclear if this joke would be funny because it’s risky and tests the sense of reverence around the Holocaust issue, or whether it is funny because somehow no-one cares about how Jewish customers of this company will feel about it. It is this latter complacency and passive acceptance that somehow Jews are ‘outside’ of normal society, and so they can be the butt of jokes. Not only that, but they can be jokes that mock what for them was a grave trauma that resulted in the deaths of millions. It’s the backdrop to this joke that should be questioned, and indeed, that was the tone of Enrique’s article.

      Would you really bet your money on that company would on purpose do something that would offend it’s customers and other people? What would be the odds for that?

      Now you are declaring yourself the winner of a competition where you hobbled the horse that you are racing against. The issue was never whether the company did this on purpose. That is a new argument that you have just introduced and which you are now claiming has been your argument all along. It certainly is not my point to you. My point is that humour can be used for evil purposes just as much as it can be used for to make people happy. You challenged that view, and I produced evidence to back it up. You backed out the debate.

      It’s not rocket science to figure out that you haven’t read those papers that I linked to!?…. lazy feck!

Leave a Reply