Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 Eyenon,Okay, can you offer a non-malicious reason for a MENSA member to mock someone for having a mental disability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 I'm not sure where you're getting this "more noble" or "better person" bullshit from. Let me make this crystal clear: If you are the sort of person who find Tosh's little "pinch a girl's belly fat" stunt to be funny, then you are, very likely, an insecure person with some sexist, if not misogynistic leanings. That's the "judgment" I am talking about. Because when you deconstruct the anatomy of why someone would find humor in that skit, the root of it has to do issues of dominance, insecurity and sexism. No one, least of all me, is advocating that you should never point out flaws through comedy. Do you truly not understand the difference between critique and suckerpunching?the only difference between critique and suckepunching is the opinion of the person discussing.I've never seen that Tosh bit but it seems to me that it's just cherry picking.like if you laugh at someone being made fun of there's a purpose to it that outweighs hurting someone's feelingsbut the stuff you don't laugh at, well its just clearly that the comedian is just a douche who is purposely trying to harm and hurt people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 here's the difference, when a hypothetical scenario is created here. The intent of the Mensa guys is established by the creator of the scenario.in a real life situation, no one can get inside the head of the Mensa guys to factually say exactly what their intent and motives are.Sure, a Mensa member can tell a joke that involves a developmentally disabled person and then intent could be mocking the way society treats our vulnerable citizens. However, you know perfectly well this is not what's being described. It's a thread about punching down humor. The hypothetical here is that Mensa member makes a joke mocking the disability of the person in question. If you find this sort of humor hilarious, then of course you are going to be negatively judged for this. It reveals something about your own character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 Sure, a Mensa member can tell a joke that involves a developmentally disabled person and then intent could be mocking the way society treats our vulnerable citizens. However, you know perfectly well this is not what's being described. It's a thread about punching down humor. The hypothetical here is that Mensa member makes a joke mocking the disability of the person in question. If you find this sort of humor hilarious, then of course you are going to be negatively judged for this. It reveals something about your own character. There is no humor here, there is just a vague description of some fictional situation.like I've said before, I have to actually hear jokes before I decide if I think they are funny or not, might be crazy eyenon talk here but yeh , I need to at least see or hear something before I start tossing out judgement about them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 the only difference between critique and suckepunching is the opinion of the person discussing.I've never seen that Tosh bit but it seems to me that it's just cherry picking.like if you laugh at someone being made fun of there's a purpose to it that outweighs hurting someone's feelingsbut the stuff you don't laugh at, well its just clearly that the comedian is just a douche who is purposely trying to harm and hurt people. You keep trying to conflate and confuse the issues by extending this out to all types of comedy. This thread is specifically about punching down humor. We are "cherry picking" examples of humor that fall in that category. This is not about hurting people's feelings. Who is talking about hurting people's feelings? We are specifically talking about a minor genre* of comedy that is predicated on reinforcing power and privilege inequities. *this means that it is not about all comedy generally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 You keep trying to conflate and confuse the issues by extending this out to all types of comedy. This thread is specifically about punching down humor. We are "cherry picking" examples of humor that fall in that category. This is not about hurting people's feelings. Who is talking about hurting people's feelings? We are specifically talking about a minor genre of comedy that is predicated on reinforcing power and privilege divisions. It's about punching down comedy, I've staTed that i think deciding what "punching down" is is completely a matter of opinion, so therefore would include all types of comedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 Or are you calling the satire and critique of a person's views to be bullying no matter what? No, I think you're doing that. Unless, of course, the bullying is ok with your political worldview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 It's about punching down comedy, I've staTed that i think deciding what "punching down" is is completely a matter of opinion, so therefore would include all types of comedy. ok, sure, this is totally inaccurate and nonsensical, but if this ends this inexplicable spree of yours, then great. No, I think you're doing that. Unless, of course, the bullying is ok with your political worldview. If that's what you think I've said then I fear you may have misread something. I am telling you that I do not believe that critique and satire are inherently bullying. I think "punching down" is a form of bullying. In fact, I recall explicitly saying that the inherent lack of satire and critique in punching down humor is part of what makes it "punching down," meaning, I see these things very differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 http://nypost.com/2015/04/19/what-garry-trudeau-gets-wrong-about-comedy-and-radical-islam/“Free expression,” declared Trudeau, “becomes its own kind of fanaticism.” It’s a line that he will carry to his grave. One that will outlive anything he ever wrote in his strip Doonesbury. A fuller quotation is even more stunning in its moral obtuseness. “What free-speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge,” he said, “is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain. Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility. At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism.” He concluded, “It’s not easy figuring out where the red line is for satire anymore. But it’s always worth asking this question: Is anyone, anyone at all, laughing? If not, maybe you crossed it.” Pre-massacre, Charlie Hebdo had a paid circulation of 60,000. Someone was laughing. Trudeau can’t picture himself or his friends reading Charlie Hebdo, so he thinks no one else must be reading it either. That Olympian inability to peer down through the cloud cover that separates the super-elite from ordinary people is death to the comic sense... ...Trudeau is correct when he says satire should punch up, not down. But fanatical Islam is not a homeless guy begging for spare change in a doorway. Islamism is a mighty, well-funded, global menace whose murderous arms extend from Kandahar Province to Boylston Street. Islamism is the world’s leading threat to peace, democracy, women’s rights, gay emancipation and, yes, free expression. It is the single most terrifying force on Earth. Charlie Hebdo didn’t claim Muslims “gave up the right to be outraged.” They can be outraged if they want. What they may not do, if they want to be considered part of the civilized world, is attack people in response... ...In 45 years as a satirist, Trudeau hasn’t figured out the distinction the rest of us made on the playground. Sticks and stones and AK-47s and sneaker bombs and flaming underwear may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 "words can never hurt" is such a dumb phrase. If they can't hurt then they have no power to incite humor or joy or love or any other 'positive' response. This idiom likely contributes to asshats thinking it's ok to mock and bully because, hey, they aren't hurting anyone if if people get hurt, it's the victim's fault! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 ok, sure, this is totally inaccurate and nonsensical, but if this ends this inexplicable spree of yours, then great. ah so you claim to have "punching down" down to a science, when you say something is "punching down" then that means it's 100% fact because you have made deciphering what "punching down" is into an art form.If anyone labels "punching down" any differently than you then they are just wrong, it's not even a matter of opinion.Is that what you are saying ?That "punching down" is not a matter of opinion and that any joke can be scientifically proven or disproven to be "punching down" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 "words can never hurt" is such a dumb phrase. Yep. Dumb as fckin shit phrase. Words can and most definitely do hurt. Kids kill themselves over being bullied in school for years because of nasty words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 but have we not established that anyone is free to have their own opinions and promote them? We have. So? Whether or not you have a right to do something does not make it an obligation, nor does it make it a morally acceptable thing to do. You have a right to create a work of art from your own shit in the form of Anita Sarkeesian. You have every right to do that. That doesn't mean that it's particularly okay to do so, or that we won't deride you for doing this. As usual you make the mistake of people claiming that something is 'wrong' to be them wanting to make it illegal, or otherwise them declaring it wrong is somehow a repression of their free speech. It is not. You are free to say whatever you choose. Not always in the place of your choosing, but you are. Others are, however, also free to respond to that. You appear to want the one without the other. It is very odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 We have. So? Whether or not you have a right to do something does not make it an obligation, nor does it make it a morally acceptable thing to do. You have a right to create a work of art from your own shit in the form of Anita Sarkeesian. You have every right to do that. That doesn't mean that it's particularly okay to do so, or that we won't deride you for doing this. As usual you make the mistake of people claiming that something is 'wrong' to be them wanting to make it illegal, or otherwise them declaring it wrong is somehow a repression of their free speech. It is not. You are free to say whatever you choose. Not always in the place of your choosing, but you are. Others are, however, also free to respond to that. You appear to want the one without the other. It is very odd. Uh no, It was explained to me many pages ago that no one on this thread is attempting to make anything illegal and I have not returned to that line of thought since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 I see these things very differently. I think that can be said for you and I in pretty much every aspect of life. However, on this one I greatly agree. I'm a firm believer, that in humor, all things are a 'go'. Punching down, up, bullying, satire, high brow, the whole smash. it's one of the few venues that true free speech is open game. Triggers, offense, non pc, all that shit is open for ridicule and exploitation in that arena. It should stay that way. The truly great comedians take all those things that others find so offensive and rip them apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 Yep. Dumb as fckin shit phrase. Words can and most definitely do hurt. Kids kill themselves over being bullied in school for years because of nasty words. But Victimhood doesn't exist Theda. It's OUR fault if we take offence at those words! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 ah so you claim to have "punching down" down to a science, when you say something is "punching down" then that means it's 100% fact because you have made deciphering what "punching down" is into an art form.If anyone labels "punching down" any differently than you then they are just wrong, it's not even a matter of opinion.Is that what you are saying ?That "punching down" is not a matter of opinion and that any joke can be scientifically proven or disproven to be "punching down" What matters here are the parameters that the OP described. The OP framed the thread asking if a joke with certain parameters can ever be funny. I have been working with her hypothetical, referring to those parameters for the sake of discussion. In addition to the example provided in the OP, I have been supplying other examples with these same parameters. That's really the definition we're working with here, and the only "definition" that is relevant, regardless of your "my definition is just as valid!" protestations, charming as they may be. @Peterbound-- yea, I think we probably agree on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 I actually fucking love comedy and stand up comedy; and I do think most things are fair game; but I also think in the same vein anyone should be allowed to critique the jokes, take them apart and analyse them and call people out on their shit. I don't agree with heckling and usually quite enjoy when a comedian cleverly takes down a heckler (didn't really find carlin's example funny at all tbh? i swear like a sailor so it's not that the swear words bother me it's just not funny) I also think the best comedians can turn tired tropes and usually crappy jokes into hilarious ones, it's just that most punching down, to me, is mean-spirited, lazy and not funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 But Victimhood doesn't exist Theda. It's OUR fault if we take offence at those words! Well (especially in terms of performed comedy), only you have control of your emotional response. It doesn't effect your income, lifestyle, or rights. Why be offended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 Anyway, heres an interesting take on percieved punching down from the late Patrice Oneal. Im not endorsing or stating agreemwnt with everything he said here but its an interesting take https://youtu.be/fjIuPSuYSOY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.