--- In [email protected], awoelflebater <no_reply@...> wrote:
> Over the top now Curtis. You are becoming much clearer to me, after this > little observational and colorful post, and we aren't even having a > discussion. We don't need to, you're letting it all hang out. First I appreciated your comments on the other post Anne. I can understand your wondering if I am projecting an agenda on you for noticing that your conclusions were a long way from what I wrote. It has me puzzled too when I read something like that from you. It skews as an oddly uncharitable view of me, but that is your business really. I don't know what is up with that and don't even have a speculation. And it didn't seem as if I convinced you that your conclusions were something you created in the first quote. In the second quote I understand your misunderstanding what I wrote that way so thanks for clarifying. Now for the quote above. Part of my job in schools is to create educational comedy dialogues. The writing process is free form at first, where I let it all hang out and don't sensor much for my intended audience. That comes later. Only about 1% of comedy material ever makes it into performance, so the generating process is prolific. I can't sensor and edit at the same time, they are completely different process in my mind. In fact many jokes come up because they are so wildly inappropriate. Only my GF gets to hear those when I generate routines for her. What I post on FFL are shitty first drafts of riffs spontaneously generated by whatever writing prompts I am using. I consider that in this writing space there are enough people who give me the freedom to let it hang out that it encourages me to post occasionally. It has been a valuable part of my creative life to post here. When I write satire I am first trying to make myself laugh. That is the only rule. People who share that sense of humor may enjoy it and those who don't predictably don't. After I post something there is often a flurry of posts designed to use what I wrote as a character analysis of me and it usually comes from people who are negatively predisposed toward me and view what I write as evidence that I am too much of something and not enough of something else. Reading those is my least favorite part of posting here, but I usually do. In my perfect world those posters would reduce it to "not my cup of tea" and leave off the psyco-spiritual analysis. But until I am elected Lord of the Universe I just have to suck it up. And so the cycle repeats. Do you watch the Simpsons or the Family Guy? Jon Stewart? Do you spend time listening to the latest stand up guys who get visibility on the comedy channel? With Canada's rich history of producing some of the best comedians in the world you must have many resources for comedy if you were interested. I study it and it affects the risks I am willing to take in my own comedy. I am willing to generate things many wont find funny to find what works on other people. I have my own limits too, I am not a fan of fart jokes. I don't dig racist humor. Much putdown humor leaves me cold. Humiliation humor doesn't do it for me. You said you loved Jim's booger story and even if it was not being used as a putdown toward me, that is not my preferred style of humor. The story made me feel bad for the guy. I am much more interested in targeting ideas than people. I believe that blasphemy is a victimless crime. I was schooled in my early reconstruction of my belief system by a wickedly funny person, Madeline O'hare. She made me laugh my way out of presupposed beliefs. It was the most remarkable experience of my life, the philosophical effect of humor. It is my ideal and although I may fall short, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn occasionally. > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > Wow that poster in NYC proved it really IS the Age of Enlightenment. > > Thanks for posting that. > > > > I just finished a book I've been chewing on for a while called "What Makes > > the Brain Happy and Why You Should Do the Opposite". Among our cognitive > > biases is our very strong unconscious one to assign a conscious agency > > behind random events. Some neuro scientists believe it is from the > > evolutionary advantage of always assuming a twig snap is a tiger cuz if you > > are wrong, so what, but if you are right... > > > > We do it automatically telling ourselves an instant story to explain that > > events not only had meaning, but that they were directed by an outside > > conscious agency. It is one of the reasons religious explanation feels so > > right to people. Deeply right. Irrefutably right. Just so damn right! > > > > But in studying the specific ways that we have cognitive gaps and biases we > > can begin to transcend our predisposition for taking the stories we create > > seriously without viewing them in a more artistic light. > > > > I am a fan of the mythology of Christmas with its images in the same > > nostalgic way I enjoy It's A Wonderful Life each year. When it gets weird > > is when a beautiful artistic myth is taken to be a factual truth about > > ultimate reality. It wasn't built for that, which is why it is so easy to > > satirize. > > > > Speaking of that I was considering how consensual the whole Holy Ghost > > hook-up was back in the day...I mean if a boss comes on to an employee we > > cry foul and bust him for coercion. I think the whole Mary story is ripe > > for a feminist retelling as a tragedy. What choice did she really have when > > the creepy uncle of the Triune God made a play for her? Did he during what > > must have been a fairly clumsy seduction remind her of what he did to the > > dinosaurs, or was it like the greatest Justin Bieber concert display but in > > the end he takes her back to the dressing room? Did he at least let her > > finish or was it just a typical wham bam thank you mam? Did she feel > > obliged to fake it to sooth his monstrous ego. "Oh baby, that was divine!" > > Now if that isn't just the juiciest wiggling worm that was ever put on a fish > hook and left to dangle out there I don't know what is. And you know he'll > bite too, don't you? > > > > These are the questions that swirl around my head as I gaze on my nativity. > > Did Mary know what he son was headed for when she signed up her uterus for > > this project, or was it presented like a Hollywood script with a lot of > > pages at the end with TBD at the top? Did her youth and inexperience, her > > cultural deference to men limit her ability to ask how it all ends before > > she signed on? What if she had told him she had a headache that night, > > would he have been a gentleman? > > Gosh Curtis, you are just loving this wayyy too much. Aren't you glad > Christmas has given you such a ripe opportunity to go to town like this? > > > > And having been around a few babies in my time, when Mary changed his > > diaper did even the Oxen rear up their heads and lumber out of the manger > > grunting "damn that holy guacamole is nasty!" > > Over the top now Curtis. You are becoming much clearer to me, after this > little observational and colorful post, and we aren't even having a > discussion. We don't need to, you're letting it all hang out. > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ME: Let me stop you there. Can you name a single person > > > > > > who could be expected to react in horror from a satiric > > > > > > piece on Christianity here? Name one pearl-clutcher, to > > > > > > use you apt image. A single person whose identification > > > > > > with the ideas contained in the myths of Christianity, > > > > > > is so complete that anything I wrote could be expected > > > > > > to react in the way your are trying to project here. One. > > > > > > > > > > I think the only such easily-offended and uptight > > > > > person is herself, Curtis. What a bowling ball- > > > > > sized burr she had up her ass today, trying to > > > > > "get" her perceived enemies. > > > > > > > > > > She was so gone that she couldn't even get that > > > > > my appreciation for the Brahma Shave poems them- > > > > > selves was genuine and that I liked them, and > > > > > that my response to her "don't rip off my artwork" > > > > > post was a joke, intended to push her buttons. > > > > > Instead, all that happened was that she got her > > > > > buttons pushed. In a very real sense, Raunchy is > > > > > the very pearl clutcher she describes. > > > > > > > > > > > I argue that mine is exactly the opposite motivation than > > > > > > the one you propose here. I wrote it for people who share > > > > > > my sense of humor, I am an entertainer. > > > > > > > > > > Why they react the way they do, Curtis, is that > > > > > they are not. They're stuck in the rut of being > > > > > "mean girls," and don't have either the creativity > > > > > or the intent to try to say anything funny and get > > > > > people to laugh. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the support. The thing is that Raunchy has > > > > been very funny here quite often. That marks her out from > > > > the pack in my opinion. > > > > > > I admit that she's *tried* to sound funny, but it > > > almost never worked for me. Too much trying, too > > > little actual funny. > > > > > > > And she is not afraid to say is she likes something I > > > > have written, which occasionally happens to and I do > > > > appreciate that. > > > > > > True that. Can you imagine Judy ever getting the > > > hate-burr out of her butt long enough to do that? :-) > > > > > > > But this post had too much of the Church Lady vibe > > > > for my taste. > > > > > > "Church Lady" is too high-vibe, cuz one gets the > > > feeling that the SNL Church Lady character actually > > > believed the shit she was saying. With Raunchy, no > > > way...it's all faux outrage, over something she > > > doesn't even feel any connection to, the little > > > baby Jeeezus myth. > > > > > > Speaking of which, this was the billboard erected > > > in Times Square yesterday. It contains a sentiment > > > similar to the one you've been expressing: > > > > > > [american atheists christmas billboard] > > > http://i.huffpost.com/gen/898888/thumbs/o-AMERICAN-ATHEISTS-CHRISTMAS-BI\ > > > LLBOARD-570.jpg?6 > > > <http://i.huffpost.com/gen/898888/thumbs/o-AMERICAN-ATHEISTS-CHRISTMAS-B\ > > > ILLBOARD-570.jpg?6> > > > > > > I wouldn't characterize myself as an atheist, more of a > > > Who *needs* a God kinda person. Occam's Razor is your > > > friend -- if no God and no Savior are needed to explain > > > the workings of the world, then chances are they aren't > > > needed to explain those workings. The simplest explan- > > > ation (no God, no need for one) is most likely the best > > > explanation. > > > > > > But some prefer fairy tales and myths. So be it. Just as > > > long as they don't try to sell them to me... > > > > > >
