I didn’t think it was funny really. I did find the comment about contacting the FBI funny though — I like sushi

The original joke is old by now. I laughed the first time I saw it eight years ago. That was it.

You are correct in that the true humor is in her reaction.

I don’t think things are any different now to any other time (speaking quite generally of course!). Outrage must necessarily go hand-in-hand with what is deemed “funny” or “tasteless”. Comedy I believe, works at its premium when both the “jovial” and the “tasteless” combine creating what I can only describe in brief as an inner-jolt brings the most horrendous ideas into safe realm where we can see ourself, through others, a most peculiar and ridiculous nature that both humiliates and informs; meaning the shock of the unexpected narrative presents confusion and we laugh because of the conflict and this seems to present something akin to a sense of priming ourselves for “exploration”? — I like sushi

I have thought this as well. Comedy can be used to almost trick the stubborn into seeing a different way, even if it is for a while. My concern is people who refuse to see anything any other way. I think that is what makes them offended, the fact that they could be wrong. It's an interesting "fight or flight" response, where you either stay and experience the joke or run away.

I think that things are the same as usual as you say. The only reason I bring up "boomers" is because they are the right age to be in power in most places right now. Before them, I'm sure their ancestors got just as upset when edgy young people criticized them. Really, the only reason I bring up the generation at all is that there seems to be a strange part obsession part abhorrence for them in certain circles, and I don't see why. Poking fun at things they do is fine, but some are actually offended by their existence, it seems.

As for Comedy and Tragedy it is easy enough to tell the difference. Comedy he framed as being, roughly speaking, “bad things happening to bad people” and Tragedy as being “bad things happening to undeserving/‘good’ people”. — I like sushi

Now I suppose the question is, "What makes people bad, and what makes people undeserving?"

Of course, the answer is different to different people, but truly I don't think there is any way to decide if people are more bad than good. First you would have to know everything they have done, and second, you would have to attach a "good" or "bad" value to those actions. This is a dangerous and nigh impossible business, not only because if you miss one action your result will be off, but because "good" and "bad" are decided by us, not any natural law. Results will always be inconclusive because people running the same numbers will get different results.

I feel maybe that this thread is focused more on what is or isn’t “offensive” rather than the underlying nature of “Comedy”. — I like sushi

I think it is maybe about both. They both do certainly intersect at some point. I think that understanding of one could help understanding of the other. Of course, I have a bad track record of making OP's that touch on multiple things and spiral off into speculation and off-topic discussions. It's probably just that.

Of course I mention this due to dipping in and out of different ideas and perspectives on Aristotle’s “Poetics,” literary critique, psychological and neurological research, and Nietzsche’s work related to this area. What has grabbed by attention lately is the argument around what Aristotle meant by “Kartharsis”. — I like sushi

Catharsis is, e.g., the purification and purgation of emotions—particularly pity and fear—through art or any extreme change in emotion that results in renewal and restoration.

Is this what you mean? I have seen it spelled many different ways.

Purging pity and fear? That is an interesting concept. Useful for someone who has or is experiencing either of those and wishes not to for sure. Perhaps this is why people listen to sad music when they are sad, or start to enjoy horror movies once they have watched enough of them. Maybe it is not purging, but downplaying your emotions because you have now seen others experience something similar and now your feelings mean less?

There is a fair amount of academic disagreement about what Aristotle meant by “Katharsis”. The modern usage IF the same would’ve still been applied to a quite different medium with a quite different set of aspects.

All I can say at the moment is I believe it’s something to do with the “Chorus” and it’s role in ancient Greek performances - I’ll try and express this obscure and possibly faulty perspective as best I can at some point and see if anyone can see if it’s worth anything.

I don't understand how this is an example of Boomers (or anyone) taking things too seriously.

1) She didn't know the backstory to these things, so how was she supposed to know it wasn't real? It would only be funny to someone who understands what a copy pasta is...

2) even then, it's not funny (imho, and I'm no Boomer). There's nothing witty or clever about it. It's just a profane, violent rant that is actually the kind of thing some people say who are deranged and dangerous.

Now excuse me while I go watch the Honeymooners. Now THAT'S funny. :wink:

What are some features that make a joke funny? Is "funniness" one of them? Or is "funniness" derived from other features? It seems like the humor or comedy of a joke derives from other elements, not "funniness" in itself.

Absurdity; cruelty; surprise; wordplay (puns); cleverness; bad manners, inappropriateness or mild insult; caricature; satire, slapstick, or travesty; and so on. In other words, a great joke is not altogether "nice".

Here is an old joke that just popped into my head: "Why do they call it "pre-menstrual syndrome?" "Because 'mad cow disease' was already taken.")†

A lightbulb joke is a joke that asks how many people of a certain group are needed to change, replace, or screw in a light bulb. Generally, the punch line answer highlights a stereotype of the target group. There are numerous versions of the lightbulb joke satirizing a wide range of cultures, beliefs and occupations. Wikipedia

"How many Mexicans does it take to change a lightbulb?" "Juan."
"How many Germans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" "One. They're efficient and not very funny."

"German humour! It's no laughing matter."

"How many Jewish mothers does it take to change a light bulb?"
"Oy, don't mind me...I'll just sit here and suffer in the dark."

†"mad cow disease" = bovine spongiform encephalopathy; it emerged as a public health issue in the mid 1990s.

There is a fair amount of academic disagreement about what Aristotle meant by “Katharsis”. The modern usage IF the same would’ve still been applied to a quite different medium with a quite different set of aspects.

All I can say at the moment is I believe it’s something to do with the “Chorus” and it’s role in ancient Greek performances - I’ll try and express this obscure and possibly faulty perspective as best I can at some point and see if anyone can see if it’s worth anything. — I like sushi

I'm looking forward to that.

As for a chorus. I can see how such a concept could be applied to them. I haven't looked too far into the subject though. Is their commentary improvised or is it scripted?

1) She didn't know the backstory to these things, so how was she supposed to know it wasn't real? It would only be funny to someone who understands what a copy pasta is... — NKBJ

It is irrelevant if she got the joke or thought it was funny, the problem is that she took something so outlandish so seriously. Anyone who gets up in the morning and goes to work and deals with other people should know how much of a piece of shlock this is. Seriously, if you think that Navy Seals are going to break down your door because you said that 4chan users should be put on terrorist watch lists, then you deserve to be made fun of and you certainly took it too seriously.

2) even then, it's not funny (imho, and I'm no Boomer). There's nothing witty or clever about it. It's just a profane, violent rant that is actually the kind of thing some people say who are deranged and dangerous. — NKBJ

Again, it doesn't matter if it isn't funny, what matters is that it was an obvious attempt at a joke. I don't think it is funny either anymore. As for rants people go on when they are angry, this is too outlandish to be seen as that anyway. Angry people go more into detail with what they will do instead of rambling on about their qualifications.

Now excuse me while I go watch the Honeymooners. Now THAT'S funny. :wink: — NKBJ

Haven't seen that one yet. I don't watch too much TV anymore. Maybe I'll see what it's like.

obvious attempt at a joke — TogetherTurtle

How in the world is it obvious? You do realize that the New Zealand mosque shooter posted an entire manifesto on the internet before actually killing people? That multiple mass murderers have written long and rambling manifestos before committing atrocities?

She was not "in" on the joke. Therefore, her reaction doesn't seem exaggerated to me at all.

Here is an old joke that just popped into my head: "Why do they call it "pre-menstrual syndrome?" "Because 'mad cow disease' was already taken.")† — Bitter Crank

That one got me.

"How many Germans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" "One. They're efficient and not very funny." — Bitter Crank

This one is great too.

What are some features that make a joke funny? Is "funniness" one of them? Or is "funniness" derived from other features? It seems like the humor or comedy of a joke derives from other elements, not "funniness" in itself. — Bitter Crank

If funniness is derived from features that make up jokes, is funniness not also a feature of a joke? Semantics aside, I do believe absurdity is where most jokes start. We laugh at things we think are strange, but why do we do that? What kind of advantage does that give us over just acknowledging strange happenings and moving on? But it is also cleverness. Taking something normal and warping it into something strange through your own intelligence is something to be proud of and I suppose something that should be praised.

How in the world is it obvious? You do realize that the Australian mosque shooter posted an entire manifesto on the internet before actually killing people? That multiple mass murderers have written long and rambling manifestos before committing atrocities? — NKBJ

I'm very aware of that, but it is about what they are writing, not that they wrote anything at all. Murderers are obsessed with how and why. They have a reason why they want to kill (motive) and a way to do it (method). The rant in question doesn't have either. Rather, the rant is just a list of falsified qualifications that anyone on the internet above the age of ten could lie about. They say that they know "seven hundred ways" of killing and that they are "tracing their IP", but that reads more like a resume than a death threat. There certainly is no motive present in the rant, and the how is kept purposely vague as to make fun of the exact phenomenon you are describing: actual death threats.

What of you? Would you take that message seriously under any circumstances? I would certainly not.

In contrast, here is an excerpt from the manifesto of Elliot Rodger, the shooter at the 2014 Isla Vista Massacre.

"On the day before the Day of Retribution, I will start the First Phase of my vengeance: Silently killing
as many people as I can around Isla Vista by luring them into my apartment through some form of
trickery. The first people I would have to kill are my two housemates, to secure the entire apartment for
myself as my personal torture and killing chamber. After that, I will start luring people into my
apartment, knock them out with a hammer, and slit their throats. I will torture some of the good looking
people before I kill them, assuming that the good looking ones had the best sex lives. All of that pleasure
they had in life, I will punish by bringing them pain and suffering. I have lived a life of pain and suffering,
and it was time to bring that pain to people who actually deserve it. I will cut them, flay them, strip all
the skin off their flesh, and pour boiling water all over them while they are still alive, as well as any other
form of torture I could possibly think of."

You can defend the stupidity required to confuse this and the message she received, but is that not just proving my point?

You can defend the stupidity required to confuse this and the message she received, but is that not just proving my point? — TogetherTurtle

What of you? Would you take that message seriously under any circumstances? I would certainly not. — TogetherTurtle

Under some, yes. I would at least take seriously enough to forward it to the police/authorities or keep it in a file in case things escalate from there. But, then, I'm a teacher, and I'm required by law to do so if it's
a student/colleague/other person connected to the students and or the school.

But also I've already seen/heard some of the weird and deranged things students write/say to people before they attack them in the cafeteria with a knife and are then put in mental health facilities.

Under some, yes. I would at least take seriously enough to forward it to the police/authorities or keep it in a file in case things escalate from there. But, then, I'm a teacher, and I'm required by law to do so if it's a student/colleague/other person connected to the students and or the school. — NKBJ

I suppose that is just an effect of your employment. One of your top priorities is keeping kids safe so I can understand being a little over cautious.

However, don't be too overly cautious. I got in trouble a lot during school for stupid stuff like this because someone took it too seriously. You want to take things seriously enough to prevent danger but not so seriously you ruin some kids life because they had a slightly more edgy sense of humor than most.

Even ignoring that vague balance that nonetheless must be kept, teachers really do have difficult jobs, and I'm glad you are taking yours seriously.

But also I've already seen/heard some of the weird and deranged things students write/say to people before they attack them in the cafeteria with a knife and are then put in mental health facilities. — NKBJ

You must teach in a more hostile environment than I was taught in. Do you work at a poorly funded school, or is there just some kind of discipline problem?

You must teach in a more hostile environment than I was taught in. Do you work at a poorly funded school, or is there just some kind of discipline problem? — TogetherTurtle

I actually work in a pretty nice community. There's two main reasons I can tell for more unstable students in mainstream schools:

the nation's opioid epidemic is reaching pretty much every community nowadays. Kids either abusing hard drugs or coming from homes where parents are means you get kids with a lot of issues. (Most of them are non-violent, but most violent kids do come from such scenarios.)

And, the budget cuts for schools and public mental health programs means we're pushed to keep unstable students in thw mainstream population much longer than we should. There's simply not enough money or beds for all the kids who need to be in special programs for a while.

That’s heartbreaking. I have some experience with getting help on mental health issues and I wish you all the best with helping these kids. It’s hard to think about my life if I wasn’t helped and I can’t even imagine kids who have it worse than I did. Keep trying to help, but just know that being too overbearing can cause trust issues and make things even worse.

Thanks! And I'll keep that in mind :wink:

is funniness not also a feature of a joke? — TogetherTurtle

I don't know; "funniness" per se is hard to pin down. It takes other rhetorical devices to make us laugh at a joke (and a joke itself fits into several rhetorical structures--"knock, knock" being one). As Mel Brooks said on a late night show, "My getting a paper cut is a tragedy; your falling into a sewer and dying is funny." On the face of it, the Mel Brooks quote isn't funny at all. What makes it funny is the wild absurdity, or the ridiculous self-absorption of the speaker. And the delivery, of course.

"Funniness" also depends on the receiver of a joke. There are some humorless, literal-minded people who don't get a lot of jokes.

I was called on the carpet once for saying "Whoever set this mail system up ought to be taken out and shot." I was reported for making violent threats. This was like... 2002 or 2003. The person to whom I was reported dismissed it, saying she said that all the time. I should have reported her, I guess.

The 1977 Mel Brooks comedy "High Anxiety" is probably condemned these days. It's a satire on Alfred Hitchcock's movies. One of the scenes shows a hired serial murderer assuring Nurse Diesel that he very much wants to kill Dr. Thorndyke. Later he attempts to strangle Thorndyke (Mell Brooks) in a phone booth and dies trying. The woman on the other end of the phone call (Madeleine Kahn) mistakes the sounds of choking as an obscene call and becomes aroused. And so on.

It has some great comic scenes, but it isn't one of Mel Brooks' best movies, because (as the critics said) Alfred Hitchcock's movies are hard to parody. They aren't loaded with the 'self importance' that makes a delicious target for satire. (Donald Trump, on the other hand...)

"Funniness" also depends on the receiver of a joke. There are some humorless, literal-minded people who don't get a lot of jokes. — Bitter Crank

When input and output aline, humor is created. If the system doesn't line up, that seems to be where things go wrong.

I was called on the carpet once for saying "Whoever set this mail system up ought to be taken out and shot." I was reported for making violent threats. This was like... 2002 or 2003. The person to whom I was reported dismissed it, saying she said that all the time. I should have reported her, I guess. — Bitter Crank

I've been in trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. In the back of my mind, I fear that I might get in huge trouble and live a lesser life as a result. Others like me have made it before, so I suppose as long as the walls don't start having eyes I should be fine.

It has some great comic scenes, but it isn't one of Mel Brooks' best movies, because (as the critics said) Alfred Hitchcock's movies are hard to parody. They aren't loaded with the 'self importance' that makes a delicious target for satire. (Donald Trump, on the other hand...) — Bitter Crank

To continue existing, I think we all have to think we are somewhat important. Of course, that can go overboard. As far as Mr. Trump goes, he is an easy target from that angle, but ease of access also invites low quality. There is a lot of satire that makes fun of satirical remarks about Donald Trump. Take this a few levels further and you can see how the layers could get confusing. It is a good way to hide how you truly feel about an issue when that has to be done, for better or for worse.

I've been in trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. In the back of my mind, I fear that I might get in huge trouble and live a lesser life as a result. — TogetherTurtle

Just don't waste saying the wrong thing about the wrong thing. There's no point in shooting one's self in the foot.

Just don't waste saying the wrong thing about the wrong thing. There's no point in shooting one's self in the foot. — Bitter Crank

I'll try I suppose.