In other 9-year-old news, we revisit The Onion controversy and Andrew ruminates on why it doesn't bother him as much as the Tosh controversy.
While comedians are allowed to say whatever they want, I personally decide whether I think a joke is reprehensible by three criteria:
1. Was the intent of the joke sincerely hateful against an undeserving party?
2. If not, was an undeserving party significantly hurt by the joke?
3. Was it worth it? Did the joke make a great point while also being incredibly funny. Did it justify the harm it caused?
Normally the jokes that create this kind of outrage aren't particularly brilliant. In the case of The Onion I don't think the intent was malicious or hateful, in Tosh's case I think it was and it barely even qualifies as a joke. Neither of which seem worth the pain they caused.
I don't think finding a joke to be unnecessarily cruel means the comedian is a terrible person and should never work again. It just means it was a regrettable decision they made and we can all move on now.
Click here to listen to the guys discuss one 9 year old who was called a filthy word and another who calls himself one.