A joke makes a thing funny by illustrating the absurdity within it. Therefore, all funny jokes about, say, rape (like the ones for which Daniel Tosh is now being berated), are illustrating the absurdity of rape and are thus either opposing it or a topic surrounding it, or, at least not supporting it. Thus, the only thing to do in the case of the recent Tosh debacle, is to decide whether Tosh’s jokes are funny or not, which is almost never productive, particularly when an organization like Jezebel is predisposed to evaluating jokes on certain topics (like rape) differently than they would evaluate jokes in general.

No one can ever argue that Tosh’s jokes are not insensitive. They absolutely are. But “insensitive” in no way translates to “wrong.” There is nothing close to a moral imperative for one to “not be insensitive” - though, in a given setting, sensitivity certainly is nice (for instance, in another person’s home or hospital room). In the setting of the comedy show, however, like Tosh’s, where one is paying to see his particular  schtick, it was the outcrying audience girl who was being insensitive or, more accurately, rude. [Though, as an aside, his reply to this was in no way funny, smart or valuable.]

If this entire issue is about bringing about constructive, positive change for serious issues, instead of inhibiting their progress in society, I would argue that oversensitivity and the unilateral condemnation of jokes along a certain topic, are much worse than making the jokes themselves. Oversensitivity represents an inability to examine a topic in a plain, honest manner and thus an inability to create a constructive plan to move forward. 

So shut up, Jezebel and all you inane supporters of Political Correctness. Your smug sensitivity and subsequent denial offend me.