On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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? > You might be surprised (or maybe not), but I do share the environmentalist ideals. I just believe that some of the strategies proposed to achieve such ideals are misguided, and that some people pose as environmentalists but have other motivations, spanning from politics/power to religiosity. One of the ways I think this religiosity is detected is when a higher value is placed on nature than humanity and its products, as if humanity and its products are somehow separated from nature. We enjoy advanced intelligence, and should act the part, instead of turning our environment into some post-apocalyptic hellhole. But the line of religiosity is crossed when we are painted as an infection that is destroying a separate nature. In this line of thinking it is assumed that nature has some preference, and that we can know what this preference is. It is also crossed when it is assumed that there are no trade-offs: no to fossil fuels, no to nuclear power, no even to gigantic solar panel farms, no to any solution that can actually keep the 7 billion of us warm and fed. > > >> >> >>> 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. > Agreed. > 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. > Agreed. > 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. > Ok, but this is a very sophisticated joke. Like you say, it depends on lateral thinking (one of the toughest mental skills to master) and meta-reasoning: the lack of the expected punchline is funny in itself. I would be very surprised if children can get this joke. Do you know if that's the case? > > > >> 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. > I agree that there is. I am just saying that low standards/high accessibility is not a guarantee of humor of the good kind. > 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. > In my experience, they can also be very eager to participate in the phoniness, just like adults. I think the main difference between children and adults is knowledge and training in certain games. The raw human behaviors are all there. > > >> >> >>> >>> 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. > Ad hominems and blatant admissions of ignorance make for boring discussion topics. > >> >> >>> >>> 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. > I wouldn't want to subject you to such a thing! > 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) > Wow, that was weird! :) Telmo. > > >> >> >>> 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. > -- 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.
