Python flopped when first released here. Two and a half men and Friends are torture. The Harvard Business Review is, indeed, a joke Gabby.
On Nov 27, 9:18 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > What is the kind of humour you would be paying for? > > Here they are asking for > suggestions:http://hbr.org/web/slideshows/cartoon/1212/4-slide > > 2012/11/27 Allan H <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > I agree what little comedy I have heard I actually find quite boring > > so I never watch it and sure as heck would not pay to see it, > > Allan > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't laugh much at popular comedy. It doesn't seem to get past > > childish > > > bathroom humor. But find humor invaluable to life and relationship. Even > > > deconstructive humor brings us to the place where we find what is of real > > > value. But it isn't cruel. Getting past the barbed humor, or what is > > being > > > passed as humor but is really meant to insult or injure is simply > > passing up > > > baloney for filet mignon. Monty Python never fails to amuse, as it shows > > the > > > timeless human condition in a humorous light. > > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 9:45:36 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > >> Not seen Chris or Charles Don. Hicks, a few derivative references > > >> apart, could have been a Brit. Our cultures are probably less far > > >> apart than such matters as the absence of footpaths in the States. > > >> Our serious comedy is mostly political satire from Yes Minister to The > > >> Thick of It. What I was wondering was whether any one else feels more > > >> general film and literature has gone Tragic and plots and characters > > >> less and less comedic in the old Greek sense. Our old sitcoms like > > >> Dads' Army, Steptoe and Son and plenty of others had a great element > > >> of 'daft people like me and you caught in a plight and muddling > > >> through'. Bilko and Top Cat had this too. A fairly recent French > > >> fil,m Mario et Jeanette had this. > > > >> On 27 Nov, 00:40, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 6:15 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > At other levels I think we should be ridiculing such matters as the > > >> > > absence of disabled people in politically correct newsrooms and > > such. > > > >> > What about Chris Mathews? budda bump bump > > > >> > Charles Krauthammer, in contrast, is a paraplegic but ok from the neck > > >> > up. > > >> > Most people don't even know about his disability because it's not > > >> > relavent. > > >> > We like his commentary. > > > >> > dj > > > >> > On Saturday, November 24, 2012 6:15:40 PM UTC-6, archytas wrote: > > > >> > > The Brits do more nob gags and used to pack theatres to see a guy > > play > > >> > > the trombone with ass-gas- needless to say a Frenchman. Audience > > >> > > milking is central to some humour - this tends to put me off, but > > some > > >> > > are so good at it I don't notice until afterwards. US comedy films > > >> > > are usually dross, but your stand-ups usually great. My recent > > >> > > favourite is 'The Pope's Toilet' from Uruguay. The hero rides a > > bike > > >> > > everywhere and his wife describes him as lacking pump for a bicycle > > >> > > man. Why do the French smell? So even the blind can hate them. > > Why > > >> > > would you find an Irishman in the Alps? Where else would you find a > > >> > > downhill lake. Irish jokes are Belgian, Polish and Swedish etc. > > > >> > > At other levels I think we should be ridiculing such matters as the > > >> > > absence of disabled people in politically correct newsrooms and > > such. > > > >> > > On 24 Nov, 21:46, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > Over here, social workers have taken kids off foster parents > > because > > >> > > > of their membership of UKIP - a party that shares the desire of > > 65% > > >> > > > of > > >> > > > the population to leave the EU and restrict immigration. You have > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > laugh - or cry! > > > >> > > > On 24 Nov, 21:38, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > Morecambe and Wise with Mum and Dad at Xmas perhaps. Laurel and > > >> > > > > Hardy. Many other popular comedians are more likely to make me > > >> > > > > weep. > > >> > > > > I never liked Chaplin (actually thinking Hitler more of a > > comedian > > >> > > > > than 'The Dictator') and we had Cannon and Ball here who hit a > > >> > > > > nerve I > > >> > > > > don't like. I can laugh with some of the ostensibly more > > >> > > > > vicious > > >> > > > > types like Bill Hicks and Frankie Boyle. Police and army > > culture > > >> > > > > reveres tough, sadistic humour with self-depreciation thrown in. > > > >> > > > > I'm against speech crime but it's also clear not everything > > goes. > > >> > > > > I > > >> > > > > don't agree with the Greek split - it's from Stanford EP - > > >> > > > > suspecting > > >> > > > > humour is closely linked with breakthrough thinking (though not > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > same) and unseating the biological trance of hierarchy (The Name > > >> > > > > of > > >> > > > > the Rose). > > > >> > > > > The SEP article concludes: > > > >> > > > > Along with the idealism of tragedy goes elitism. The people who > > >> > > > > matter > > >> > > > > in tragedy are kings, queens, and generals. In comedy there are > > >> > > > > more > > >> > > > > characters and more kinds of characters, women are more > > prominent, > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > many protagonists come from lower classes. Everybody counts for > > >> > > > > one. > > >> > > > > That shows in the language of comedy, which, unlike the elevated > > >> > > > > language of tragedy, is common speech. The basic unit in tragedy > > >> > > > > is > > >> > > > > the individual, in comedy it is the family, group of friends, or > > >> > > > > bunch > > >> > > > > of co-workers. > > > >> > > > > While tragic heroes are emotionally engaged with their problems, > > >> > > > > comic > > >> > > > > protagonists show emotional disengagement. They think, rather > > than > > >> > > > > feel, their way through difficulties. By presenting such > > >> > > > > characters as > > >> > > > > role models, comedy has implicitly valorized the benefits of > > humor > > >> > > > > that are now being empirically verified, such as that it is > > >> > > > > psychologically and physically healthy, it fosters mental > > >> > > > > flexibility, > > >> > > > > and it serves as a social lubricant. With a few exceptions like > > >> > > > > Aquinas, philosophers have ignored these benefits. > > > >> > > > > If philosophers wanted to undo the traditional prejudices > > against > > >> > > > > humor, they might consider the affinities between one > > contemporary > > >> > > > > genre of comedy—standup comedy—and philosophy itself. There are > > at > > >> > > > > least seven. First, standup comedy and philosophy are > > >> > > > > conversational: > > >> > > > > like the dialogue format that started with Plato, standup > > routines > > >> > > > > are > > >> > > > > interactive. Second, both reflect on familiar experiences, > > >> > > > > especially > > >> > > > > puzzling ones. We wake from a vivid dream, for example, not sure > > >> > > > > what > > >> > > > > has happened and what is happening. Third, like philosophers, > > >> > > > > standup > > >> > > > > comics often approach puzzling experiences with questions. “If I > > >> > > > > thought that dream was real, how do I know that I'm not dreaming > > >> > > > > right > > >> > > > > now?” The most basic starting point in both philosophy and > > standup > > >> > > > > comedy is “X—what's up with that?” Fourth, as they think about > > >> > > > > familiar experiences, both philosophers and comics step back > > >> > > > > emotionally from them. Henri Bergson (1911 [1900]) spoke of the > > >> > > > > “momentary anaesthesia of the heart” in laughter. Emotional > > >> > > > > disengagement long ago became a meaning of > > >> > > > > “philosophical”—“rational, > > >> > > > > sensibly composed, calm, as in a difficult situation.” Fifth, > > >> > > > > philosophers and standup comics think critically. They ask > > whether > > >> > > > > familiar ideas make sense, and they refuse to defer to authority > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > tradition. It was for his critical thinking that Socrates was > > >> > > > > executed. So were cabaret comics in Germany who mocked the Third > > >> > > > > Reich. Sixth, in thinking critically, philosophers and standup > > >> > > > > comics > > >> > > > > pay careful attention to language. Attacking sloppy and > > illogical > > >> > > > > uses > > >> > > > > of words is standard in both, and so is finding exactly the > > right > > >> > > > > words to express an idea. Seventh, the pleasure of standup > > comedy > > >> > > > > is > > >> > > > > often like the pleasure of doing philosophy. In both we relish > > new > > >> > > > > ways of looking at things and delight in surprising thoughts. > > >> > > > > William > > >> > > > > James (1979 [1911], 11) said that philosophy “sees the familiar > > as > > >> > > > > if > > >> > > > > it were strange, and the strange as if it were familiar.” The > > same > > >> > > > > is > > >> > > > > true of standup comedy. Simon Critchley has written that both > > ask > > >> > > > > us > > >> > > > > to “look at things as if you had just landed from another > > >> > > > > planet” (2002, 1). > > > >> > > > > One recent philosopher attuned to the affinity between comedy > > and > > >> > > > > philosophy was Bertrand Russell. “The point of philosophy,” he > > >> > > > > said, > > >> > > > > “is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth > > >> > > > > stating, > > >> > > > > and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will > > believe > > >> > > > > it” (1918, 53). In the middle of an argument, he once observed, > > >> > > > > “This > > >> > > > > seems plainly absurd: but whoever wishes to become a philosopher > > >> > > > > must > > >> > > > > learn not to be frightened by absurdities” (2008 [1912], 17). > > > >> > > > > I laughed a lot > > ... > > read more » --
