On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < > multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:34 AM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Well of course laughing AT people you dislike is a classic bullying >>>> technique. And then you say "oh come on it was only a joke!" >>>> >>>> Yet bullies never make jokes about themselves, because they are often >>>> humourless sociopaths. >>>> >>> >>> I agree. I think people understand intuitively that making fun of >>> someone that is at a disadvantage in relation to you is just mean and >>> distasteful. It is sociopathic to find that sort of thing funny. It's very >>> common with teenagers, and I think that part of the reason is fear: if you >>> don't join in on the bullying, you could become the victim yourself. >>> Unfortunately, some people never develop past that stage. >>> >> >> Ok. >> >> >>> >>> I don't think that this joke is mean in any sense. On the contrary, I >>> think that environmentalists that can't laugh about it a bit should be >>> worried that they are becoming too religious. >>> >> >> But why can't somebody just not find it funny period? >> > > Of course they can! > Hehe, even if they're whores to environmentalist ideals? > > >> That was what I was addressing in part with my humor sectarian post. >> >> Of course, I enjoy sophisticated humor but not as much as I enjoy the >> really dumb, low kind because of general accessibility + laughing at the >> vanity of high standards itself, which terribly obvious jokes imply. >> > > I don't make this distinction. I think either it's funny or it's not (for > me). > It can be fun. For instance: *Two men are walking along a street in town. One of them walks into a bar. The other one doesn't.* US Linguists had set up this experiment and gauged that this joke, despite its simplicity, was difficult to comprehend for high number of listeners. Point being, high level synchronized sophistication on commonly held specialized domains isn't the only barrier to comprehension. The joke can be so simple, that many will miss it. In this case, invoking urban setting with "town" causes most to associate "bar" with "establishment selling alcoholic beverages" rather than prompt the ambiguity of this semantic interpretation with "long, rigid metal/solid obstruction". Accessibility is not reducible to "fun or not" or high level access to common terms and I think this is funny itself, as it annihilates somehow "smart sophistication in humor = high level + fancy assumptions", in a few words. This example is not merely puns or word play as it negates the whole premise of joking by not offering sexy/smart punchline; with an ultra dumb "dude walks into object and the other doesn't". Weird and I love it but apparently access is limited. > Of course some people pretend to enjoy things that are deemed to be > sophisticated in an attempt to display higher status. But then there's also > humor that arises in some niche of interest, and will only work for people > in this niche. There can be a clicky side to this, but I think there can > also be a healthy side, as a bonding strategy. Live having drinks together. > > In the same way, there can be a dark side to "lowest common denominator" > humor, by killing serious discussion with oversimplification. You should > try following politics in the south of Europe. > Agree to disagree. There is a kind of humor that has low standards/high accessibility and that is not artificially stupid or fake. See children: mostly, I find they can spot adults/jokes that are disingenuous or phoney... even if they just loose attention. They feel when smiles or jokes are forced and it makes them uneasy. > > >> >> Because only at this "low point", is humor everywhere, and not just >> monopoly of some group poking fun at another. Kids can relate to this kind, >> strangers in some foreign land, non-specialists, as can old folks out of >> the "oh so sacred loop" of fashions. >> >> And yes, Nazi/harmful literalist can laugh too which most here have no >> problem with; but we do have to point out how Chris is not being cool. >> > > I have no problem with nazis laughing. I would much rather have them > laughing than doing other things. > > >> At least Chris spoke out against this tendency of the list; with history >> showing that conciliatory measures and tone with this type of "argument" >> might not always be good long term strategy for engagement. This I find >> rather funny in a sad/creepy. >> > > I don't understand what you mean here. > That there have been so many ad hominem remarks, literal ideological fights, bickering, and blatant admissions of intolerance posted on this list... that I find it weird why suddenly Chris' reaction is a topic. > > >> >> Assuming I'm some environmentalist and I don't laugh at this joke "a >> bit"... that means I'm too religious?! >> > > No. What feels a bit religious to me is the attempt to paint those who do > find the joke funny as morally flawed in some way. > Well, you and your kind (pick your favorite properties and sets + insert here) of platonic degenerates have no morals. Everybody knows this. That's why Socrates had to leave for court. Of course he's guilty. > > >> Why not turn this around as in: What if you're too religious at >> demarcating who is too religious, with some bias towards a category of >> environmentalist? >> > > I don't deny that this is a possibility. Like you, I tend to remember > Gödel. > What? You pulling a Gödel-Cop sentence on ME? (that was said with my hyper-astonished African Murcan accent followed by loads of expletives) > > > >> Is this as funny as the original? >> > > Could be, it's all in the delivery... > It's all in the everything. And unless I see somebody out there slugging it out, improvising comedy with a bitchy, jaded, north European crowd and making them laugh... our generalizations can be neat, but I have to see/hear the material itself to approve it's idiocy. And if you're doing stand up, send a mail and I'll come visit your open mic, sure. This has my latest seal of approval for virals and could fit your style, if you haven't had the pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6yHoSvrTss Warning: pre-videogame generation might lack some references. But that's ok and we still love you. Nonetheless, with the rigor in our literature departments, this kind of nutty video could be Phd in mythology deconstruction. (evil grin and sorry to the literature folks) > > >> I still don't see it but I have a record here for being the obtuse guy ;-) >> > > No you don't. :) > Liz is trying to compete but she can't because if men continue to hord all the Nobel prizes and high pay, then we get to hord all the negative obtuosities and such with that. It has nothing to do with fairness, I know. But were the odd universal numbers, hogging all the primes but one, in some branches ever fair to the even ones? Fair would be even, while men are... odd. That's Comp G* mysticism, the low accessible sexy kind. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
