Whenever people start talking about "the good old days" I have to ask, would this have been taken as a funny joke if it was a letter mailed to some 51-year-old woman in the 19th or 20th century? I would figure, probably not. Why do you think differently?

It's also obvious from this woman's claims that she's not a reasonable person to be taking her as representative of either old people or 51-year-old women. One of her posts in the thread reads "I said online radicalisation of angry white men had to stop". Based on that and the fact that she's taking a copypasta so seriously, I think it's fair to say she fits the extreme leftist stereotype and for them, getting offended over nothing is basically a political position.

I'm not sure whether sending copypasta death threats to political speakers should really be taken as a joke or not but the overreaction is more typical of leftists than old people and I think that's what's going on here.

Whenever people start talking about "the good old days" — Judaka

I too wonder about this especially people from the south who talk about the "good ole days" considering that back in those days people of a different skin pigmentation were lynched and all.

Why do people get offended at jokes? — TogetherTurtle

The only reason I would ever get offended is if the joke is not really funny (I have the Jerry Seinfeld sensibilities). The more potentially offensive a joke is, the funnier it needs to be in order to be justified. This copypasta is a good example. It is BARELY funny. So if 1 out of 100 people might take it seriously, it not even close to worth it. Notice what most people find funny is the idea that "this 51 year old lady is so dumb and out of touch that she actually thinks NAVY seals are on their way to kill her". So are we laughing at her for being stupid or fearing for her life? Either way, I think even the worst sitcom is funnier.

Uh oh, I might sound like an old person. Haha.

You're a piece of work lol.

Why do people get offended at jokes? — TogetherTurtle

As an old man, I am very offended by jokes that are not funny. I want to hear politically incorrect jokes that have a decided improper edge to them.

If I ever become rich enough to retire, I would like to travel around and collect stories from the elderly and publish that for others to read. — TogetherTurtle

Don't wait till you are rich enough to retire. All us fascinating geriatric storehouses of knowledge, hilarious sarcasm, wisdom, and so forth will be dead. Better start doing it now.

It's also obvious from this woman's claims that she's not a reasonable person to be taking her as representative of either old people or 51-year-old women. One of her posts in the thread reads "I said online radicalisation of angry white men had to stop". Based on that and the fact that she's taking a copypasta so seriously, I think it's fair to say she fits the extreme leftist stereotype and for them, getting offended over nothing is basically a political position. — Judaka

I don't think that she is a representative of older people or 51-year-old women, but I do think she is a representative of the culture I'm discussing. Typically when people make fun of this culture, they post an image like this

https://www.memecreator.org/meme/ok-boomer/

So I think it is mainly linked to baby boomers, of course only a small subset, but that small subset seems to make up a majority of important figures. You mentioned that taking this kind of thing seriously is a strategy the left uses, but I would say the right uses it as well. Personally, I am questioning whether this is a strategy or a result of being sheltered from a world that thinks tragedy can also be comedy.

I'm not sure whether sending copypasta death threats to political speakers should really be taken as a joke or not but the overreaction is more typical of leftists than old people and I think that's what's going on here. — Judaka

If it is a joke or not depends on intention. Whether it is funny or not is for us to decide.

The only reason I would ever get offended is if the joke is not really funny (I have the Jerry Seinfeld sensibilities). The more potentially offensive a joke is, the funnier it needs to be in order to be justified. This copypasta is a good example. It is BARELY funny. So if 1 out of 100 people might take it seriously, it not even close to worth it. Notice what most people find funny is the idea that "this 51 year old lady is so dumb and out of touch that she actually thinks NAVY seals are on their way to kill her". So are we laughing at her for being stupid or fearing for her life? Either way, I think even the worst sitcom is funnier.

Uh oh, I might sound like an old person. Haha. — ZhouBoTong

You are right in terms of it's level of humor. It gets less funny the more it is used I'm afraid, and most jokes seem to be like that. If this was a message board in the early 2000's maybe it would be a bigger hit. If this woman doesn't think the joke is funny, that is fine, but would you agree that it is obviously a joke? I also agree that the comedy here seems to be layered. The copypasta is to some lesser degree funny, but the true punchline is that this person actually believes it.

You sound like a normal person. Age wasn't really what I wanted to call into question here, more a demographic that particularly exists within a certain age range.

As an old man, I am very offended by jokes that are not funny. I want to hear politically incorrect jokes that have a decided improper edge to them. — Bitter Crank

I agree to some extent, but I also love more vanilla jokes as well. To me, context can only make things funnier. Maybe I'm just a bit messed up, but the sooner after the tragedy the better the comedy for me.

So, being an older person, had you heard of this before? Did you think it was funny?

Don't wait till you are rich enough to retire. All us fascinating geriatric storehouses of knowledge, hilarious sarcasm, wisdom, and so forth will be dead. Better start doing it now. — Bitter Crank

That is what I'm afraid of. I would start now but money and sustenance are a problem not to mention work and college. Maybe a bit on the side would be nice, but it would be strange if it took ten or twenty years. Or maybe that would be a selling point. Who knows what people like.

Whenever people start talking about "the good old days" I have to ask, would this have been taken as a funny joke if it was a letter mailed to some 51-year-old woman in the 19th or 20th century? I would figure, probably not. Why do you think differently? — Judaka

It probably would not have been funny, but equally horrible things would have been, no? It perhaps wouldn't have been funny back then because the authorities could have easily traced it and then punished the joker. Notice that the person used a throwaway email. I think that anonymity has changed the nature of comedy, and if people could have sent letters anonymously in the 19th and 20th centuries, this would have probably been common.

I too wonder about this especially people from the south who talk about the "good ole days" considering that back in those days people of a different skin pigmentation were lynched and all. — Anaxagoras

The OP was referencing baby boomers, not those over 100 years old. As noted in the Wiki article,
"Lynchings were most frequent from 1890 to the 1920s, with a peak in 1892." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States.

Regardless, what I suspect is that those reminiscing about the good old days, whether having grown up in the Jim Crow south or even the apparently racist free North, are not talking about how great it was to be white and privileged and how they could kick around those less fortunate, but they are probably referencing their day to day lives, living among friends and in places now long past that they miss and have fond memories of. Sentimentality is not a terribly complicated thing and it's understandable that someone "old" who came into being in a different world and who had adapted to those circumstances at that time would yearn for its return.

I agree in part with the idea that warm memories of days gone by are often romanticized, but I don't agree that they can be dismissed as entirely false. Some good things are lost and not all progress is good. To say otherwise suggests a perfect world where evolution constantly corrects, and that simply is not so.

I agree in part with the idea that warm memories of days gone by are often romanticized, but I don't agree that they can be dismissed as entirely false. Some good things are lost and not all progress is good. To say otherwise suggests a perfect world where evolution constantly corrects, and that simply is not so. — Hanover

Perhaps evolution constantly corrects, but the standards we hold ourselves to constantly change? After all, our social evolution is driven by us, but our aspirations also set by us. If we can know what we truly want, and know what we need to get what we want, I think that would be an ideal world reminiscent of what people think back on. If we want the world that we truly desire, we have to adapt fast enough to keep up with our desires.

Of course, that’s an incredibly vague outline for a perfect world. Probably a flawed one too. Just my two cents.

A couple of observations here. First, regardless of Kennedy's political affiliations, the fact that she is a public figure in today's extremely polarized social climate means that she is going to be exposed to some scary, violent and threatening comments. If it were you regularly receiving legitimately threatening messages from some unbalanced-sounding individuals, how would you react? I assume with caution, Even if you knew that most of them were not to be taken seriously, could you afford not to be on your guard? I also want to point out that copy pastas are used for lots of reasons, including as a weapon by people who in some cases don't have much of a sense of humor and don't have the ability to write their own original message. Most people use this particular copy pasta as an over the top joke, but not all do.Obviously Kennedy wasn't aware that this was a meme that had been around a long time. Does that justify her reaction? It depends. I don't necessarily assume she was taking literally the content of the copypasta. I think she was responding to the spirit of it, the fact that it expresses intense hatred. And as i said, even though it was intended by whoever originally wrote it as an over the top joke, that does not mean the person who posted it wasn't trying to send a more sinister message.

That brings me to you. I'm curious as to your own political orientation. Do you live in a liberal urban area? Did you go to a liberal university? You claim that politically correct over-serious culture is dominated by Baby Boomers. Well, given the fact that they are more likely to be in a position to have power and visibility than younger generations,it isn't surprising that you would hear more from them than younger leaders. But there is now a split within the politically correct leftist tradition. The older social justice warriors tend to be on the side of free speech on campus, whereas millennials are more likely to claim the Baby Boom political activists are too tolerant and out of touch . They believe that a harsher, more censorious approach is needed. Younger activists are ridiculed by older activists and journalists for being intolerant. Safe spaces, trigger warnings, movements to ban certain speakers from campus are all associated more with millennials than with Boomers.
Obama and Clinton were the Boomers' politicians. Humorless, in-your-face, shouting Bernie Sanders is the preferred type of leader for many millenails.

Perhaps evolution constantly corrects, but the standards we hold ourselves to constantly change? After all, our social evolution is driven by us, but our aspirations also set by us. — TogetherTurtle

If I understand you, you are not speaking of biological evolution when you say "constantly corrects". For one, it doesn't "correct", and for two, it's much, much too slow for us to observe in ourselves. What does change is custom, social practice, "the standards we hold", and that sort of thing.

Whether "our social evolution is driven by us" is a very interesting question. Resolving the issue is too big a topic for here and now.

If we can know what we truly want, and know what we need to get what we want, I think that would be an ideal world reminiscent of what people think back on. If we want the world that we truly desire, we have to adapt fast enough to keep up with our desires. — TogetherTurtle

Knowing "what we truly want" is one big problem, and knowing how to get what we want is another big problem. Keeping up with our desires is a race we have never won, because "our reach exceeds our grasp" as the saying goes. Unfettered desires are a voracious malignancy which can kill us off before we come close to satisfaction. In practical, everyday terms, we need to keep our desires under control if we want to be happy.

Our desires have been an asset and a liability for as long as the species has been in business, I suspect.

Unfettered desires are a voracious malignancy which can kill us off before we come close to satisfaction. — Bitter Crank

And yet even those who refuse to try for their desires die, and so do those who actually reach their desires. It seems the only alternative to death is reaching for greatness, even if you may die in the process. So tell me, if I wish to avoid death, is there any other alternative to searching for endless life? Other than giving up and dying of my own accord, of course.

If evolution (biologically and sociologically speaking) doesn’t correct, then what does it do? It doesn’t strive toward a specific goal, but it does strive for perfection in a specific enviornment. If an organism has an adaptation that hurts its chances of surviving, it is removed from the gene pool. If an adaptation helps, it is propegated within the gene pool. The same can be said for ideas.

Knowing what we want and how to get it really is the problem, but it is a problem we have been in the business of solving for a long time. I hope I can contribute to the progress we’ve made over my lifetime.

Now it seems that our reach exceeds our grasp, but how long will that remain true? There’s no hard limit on how much we can learn or build other than our own ambition. I think it is possible that this could happen, but probably not within my lifetime. If I wish to live forever, I do accept the looming possibility of dying far before that is possible. But should I stop trying? What of all the people after me? I think I would be happy if my work contributes to the work of the person who finally does something.

However, in stark contrast to this, there seems to be a prevalent culture among "baby boomers" (typically the younger baby boomers, and especially the ones in the public eye) to take almost everything seriously, no matter how stupid or absurd. — TogetherTurtle

I really don't know what you're talking about with this observation.

Why do people get offended at jokes? — TogetherTurtle

Maybe you lay on us a joke you think super funny that the old people haven gotten offended at and we'll see if we can tell you why they're so terribly offended.

If you go back in time and watch some old sit-coms (like All in the Family for example), you'll see that offensive humor was far more in vogue back then than now. We currently live in a very sensitive society, and that's not the work of boomers as much as it the result of an increasingly diverse society where more people have a voice than before. Those who typically are most sensitive are those that are more liberal than conservative, and there are plenty of conservative old people. Plenty.

A nice, succinct summary of boomer/millennial differences.

Yes: Clinton and Obama would be better company for a figurative (or literal) night on the town than Sanders and Warren, and that is not an altogether trivial difference.

Angelfire... Lycos... Tripod... You landed on Angelfire some years back and stayed there, I suppose. I thought those old sites had turned to dust but apparently not. I'm always surprised to find some old website like Dogpile metasearch still in business.

I gather you are in academia. Your list on your Angelfire page doesn't look like the work of a hobbyist, and you have apparently been at it awhile.

First, regardless of Kennedy's political affiliations, the fact that she is a public figure in today's extremely polarized social climate means that she is going to be exposed to some scary, violent and threatening comments. If it were you regularly receiving legitimately threatening messages from some unbalanced-sounding individuals, how would you react? I assume with caution, Even if you knew that most of them were not to be taken seriously, could you afford not to be on your guard? — Joshs

The more of something you have, the less meaning those things have. If I received as many death threats as she is claiming to receive, they would collectively mean nothing to me. No matter how many death threats I receive, the actually capacity for anyone to follow through on them is null anyway. Of course, a disconnected individual wouldn’t know that either.

You say that people use copypastas are used for hostility, and I can’t say that isn’t true. However, I do highly doubt that anyone would use this particular one for hostility. The tone isn’t serious enough to portray any hostile intention.

Even if she was responding to the “spirit” of the emails, why didn’t she choose a more serious email to show? This is the last nail in the coffin for this theory. If she really was not taking the message literally, then she wouldn’t have shown this one.

As for myself, I can offer some info publicly here and if you have any other questions you can send me a private message. I live in a relatively rural area. I’ve seen a lot of corrupt politicians and radical lunatics in my time (which isn’t the longest, but a few decades at least) and I have lost faith in a human beings ability to resist greed. I truly believe that if a person is given enough power for long enough, they will inevitably become corrupt. Even if someone is given little power (similar to the amount of power a single vote contains) they can still act all knowing and arrogant. Essentially, the only thing that can slow this down is the type of person the affected is. Some are more vulnerable to corruption and some less, but everyone will succumb given enough time and/or power.

The closest title I can assign myself is that of a technocrat. People can not be trusted with power because they will thirst for more and use what they have for greed. If a machine could be created that automated the process of beurocracy and government, one that was not sentient but made decisions based on the variables it was given, then that could not be corrupted as long as whatever source code or hardware it had could be protected. This is much, much easier said than done of course. It would take not only a group of people with great skill, but also great resistance to the forces of greed. Much funding would be needed as well.

In my experience, there is no organization or political party in America that supports freedom of speech. If you asked anyone off the street “what do you think is inappropriate to discuss?”, then you would probably get answers other than “nothing.” Freedom of speech implies that you should be able to say whatever you want no matter the context. I believe this to an extent, because I am a supporter of giving people the ability to say what needs to be said. But what of social taboos? What of jokes about horrible tradgedies mere days after they happen? Do you think those are acceptable?

As for the divide you seem to make between baby boomer politicians and millennial politicians, I think that this difference is only in their approach to control and less about how they actually feel. Politicians are only obligated to tell people what they want to hear. There is no mechanism in place anywhere in the world that forces politicians to be honest and live up to expectations. Liberal millennials think they are the only correct ones and their politicians promise to enforce such an Orwellian policy. Baby boomer liberals believe that they are the only correct ones, but that since they are right, the system will naturally lean towards them. If you replaced liberal with conservative, you would have how the other side feels. Essentially, politicians are privileged in that they don’t have to actually care about protecting people they are payed to protect.

I really don't know what you're talking about with this observation. — Hanover

Well, the tweet I linked to is a good example, but if you want more, just turn on CNN or Fox. It isn’t hard for me to think of Bill O’reily doing something similar to what Emma Kennedy did.

I agree that milenials encourage the more sanitized version of culture that you discuss, but my question is why do boomer politicians support it so much? I love older comedy and sitcoms because they don’t hold much back, but they do hold a good amount back still, don’t they? If you made a movie making fun of America’s move into Vietnam during the Vietnam war (or the 40
Years after for that matter) you would be blasted by everyone everywhere. Essentially, my belief is that instead of censoring more, we are changing what we are censoring. Open gay relationships weren’t allowed on tv in the 50’s but the portrayal of native Americans as savage was commonplace. Now the tables have turned.

As for the jokes I thought were funny that older people thought were horrible, I suppose you could do a quick google search for memes about the Vietnam war and the disaster that was, about horrible illnesses like AIDs or tuberculosis, or events like 9/11 or the any terrorist attacks in Europe. That last one is my favorite personally right now, those Europeans really have dug themselves into a hole and laughing at that dumpster fire has brought me a lot of joy. Of course, I don’t think those poor people living in Orwellian failed socialst surveillance states are laughing too much. Especially the British, with those acid attacks.

It seems the only alternative to death is reaching for greatness, even if you may die in the process. — TogetherTurtle

There is no alternative to eventual death. You are a young man and you are thinking about what great accomplishments you can achieve. That is the way you should be now. Soon enough life grinds down our idealism, our aspirations, our hopes and dreams. Don't despair -- that is how we get from rough to smooth and polished. With any luck, you will become a brilliant gem before you exit.

If evolution (biologically and sociologically speaking) doesn’t correct, then what does it do? — TogetherTurtle

Evolution isn't directed towards any end. It is visible only in retrospect. The renaissance view (in Hamlet, WS) was

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! ...

These days we are less likely to think of ourselves as "the paragon of animals". Evolution wasn't striving to produce our agile bodies and big brains. We just happened the same way squirrels happened, and whether we are going to be successful in the long run isn't at all clear yet. We have gotten ourselves into a tight corner (global warming) that we might not get out of.

I don't know whether we are in charge of our own society or not. We might not be, because "society" is an emergent property of many individuals. No one individual can guide all the other individuals; we aren't a hive species ruled by a queen. Someone has a new idea; the idea is bounced around from person to person and develops (changes, gets better or worse...) and begins to affect behavior in unpredictable ways.

Take the idea of the Internet, invented in 1982-1983, and then the WWW in 1990. Who knew what would be the result back then? Netscape. AOL. Porn galore and facts on tap. Amazon and Google. Bing. Facebook. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Philosophy Forum. Deviant Art. 4Chan...

Don't know why I keep that angelfire site. i guess so I don't have to run down and change all the links to it I've spread out god knows where over the years.
My undergrad and grad training was in cognitive psychology. I worked as a counselor in halfway house settings for adult mentally ill populations for a few years, intending to become a psychotherapist while putting together my own version of what used to be called personality theory. But as my writing became more focused, it steered me toward the underpinnings of psychological theory, which led me to existentialism, phenomenology, hermeneutics and deconstruction.. So I immersed myself in continental philosophy, although I was enormously suspicious of its methods at first, having been indoctrinated as a good Anglo-american pragmatist.
Eventually, the continental approach won me over, and I began submitting articles to philosophy and interdisciplinary journals. Fortunately, philosophy is one field where you don't have to have an academic title in order to be published.
So I've been content to live the life of an independent scholar, while watching those in academia lose more and more job autonomy, security and benefits. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

There is no alternative to eventual death. You are a young man and you are thinking about what great accomplishments you can achieve. That is the way you should be now. Soon enough life grinds down our idealism, our aspirations, our hopes and dreams. Don't despair -- that is how we get from rough to smooth and polished. With any luck, you will become a brilliant gem before you exit. — Bitter Crank

Whether you are right or wrong, this world will get better. Again comes the caution I love almost as much as the stories. We must rely on the young to think crazy and the old to think sane, no? Both sides are as essential as they are poised against each other. I think it is beautiful. But is it maybe crazy to think sane and sane to think crazy? Perhaps we are all always both.

Of course evolution did not strive to create our agile bodies or brilliant minds, it is simply the mechanism for betterment. The betterment is what we are.

As for the internet, and the direction it took. We couldn’t have known. But what if we had every variable involved and a mind strong and powerful enough to run the numbers? I think we could have known then. Of course that’s a lot of work, but we have done hard things before. Another thing I admire so about my ancestors is their ability to accomplish so much with comparatively so little. I hope I can do the same.

And perhaps we are all as gemstones, forged in the fires of the earth, grinded against materials of various hardness to attain a glistening sheen that permeates through time. And those other materials are other people, grinding and sanding each other into shapes that compliment each other. All I wish is for all of the pieces to fit together one day.

If you made a movie making fun of America’s move into Vietnam during the Vietnam war (or the 40
Years after for that matter) you would be blasted by everyone everywhere. — TogetherTurtle

There was a very powerful anti-Vietnam movement throughout the war, which many would credit as hastening the end of that conflict. In fact, I'd say Vietnam was a turning point in American history that ended the reverence for American military policy. You'd probably make a better point in arguing that belittling America's involvement in World War 2 would not go over very well, but that has to do with the nature of the conflict more than the sorts of senses of humor the various generations have.

As for the jokes I thought were funny that older people thought were horrible, I suppose you could do a quick google search for memes about the Vietnam war and the disaster that was, about horrible illnesses like AIDs or tuberculosis, or events like 9/11 or the any terrorist attacks in Europe. That last one is my favorite personally right now, those Europeans really have dug themselves into a hole and laughing at that dumpster fire has brought me a lot of joy. Of course, I don’t think those poor people living in Orwellian failed socialst surveillance states are laughing too much. Especially the British, with those acid attacks. — TogetherTurtle

I was looking for a specific joke, not a generalization so that I could see if I would laugh or not. I'm not particularly sensitive, so if I didn't think it was funny, maybe it wasn't. I don't know really because you've not shared the joke.

An AIDS joke isn't really funny to those who've watched their friends buried, a 9/11 joke isn't really funny for those New Yorkers who once worked in the Twin Towers, and the Vietnam War isn't funny to those who can't hold onto any relationships. For that reason, such jokes are usually shared only among very close friends who know their audience and know one another's true opinions. It's entirely different to tell an insensitive joke in private where you respect the sensitivities of those who might be offended as opposed to insisting that you have the right to say whatever you want to whoever you want.

For the record, I was born in 1966, which makes me one of the first citizens of Gen X. As one of its eldest statesmen, I can say that it is was and remains the finest generation. It was the last generation that considered tattoos only acceptable for those who once served in the military, lived in trailer parks, or served time in prison. When I was born, as the record reveals, the world was in black and white. Today we have cell phones and pornography availability previously unimaginable. The transition has been flawless for my generation of survivors. We are also the funniest and best looking generation, each and every one of more clever than the rest. My accession to moderator on this forum is precisely the type of success my generation has come to expect.

For that reason, such jokes are usually shared only among very close friends who know their audience and know one another's true opinions. It's entirely different to tell an insensitive joke in private where you respect the sensitivities of those who might be offended as opposed to insisting that you have the right to say whatever you want to whoever you want. — Hanover

But I don’t think this is quite true anymore. People who do this kind of stuff have huge followings on social media.

And why can’t we make those jokes, even to those affected? Why is they feeling bad more important than us feeling good? Why does how anyone feel matter at all?

Also, on the note of the counterculture against Vietnam, it was constantly blasted by the media, and the general attitude of negativity toward military conflict started only at the end of the conflict and grew much larger after. During the war, it was mostly hippies. Needless to say, no anti-war movies were being shown in theatres back then. To the contrary, documentaries about the innocents, police officers, and druggies killed or imprisoned by the war on drugs are abundant and that is still going on.

To me, as far as comedy goes, it doesn't matter if you are right or even if you are funny. If you attempted a joke then it is a joke. If you don't think a joke is funny, that's fine, but getting so angry that you believe Navy Seals are going to actually kill you is ridiculous.

I was looking for a specific joke, not a generalization so that I could see if I would laugh or not. I'm not particularly sensitive, so if I didn't think it was funny, maybe it wasn't. I don't know really because you've not shared the joke. — Hanover

This is a good one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS1kuX4Hu9E

An AIDS joke isn't really funny to those who've watched their friends buried, a 9/11 joke isn't really funny for those New Yorkers who once worked in the Twin Towers, and the Vietnam War isn't funny to those who can't hold onto any relationships. — Hanover

That's all well and good, and even to be expected. But what of the hypocrisy of saying that these things can't be joked about? What if you were in Julius Caesar's entourage and someone sent you this Reddit post?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Memes_Of_The_Dank/comments/94y6dw/julius_caesar_after_the_16th_stab_colorized_44_bc/

If you are Caesar or his entourage and wish to forget this, sure, I suppose you can. But what of all the people who thought that was funny? Are they not entitled to laugh? I suppose Brutus would have found it funny if he understood the context of the image used, at least until he killed himself to avoid capture. But we knew neither of them, so we can laugh at both of their deaths without consequence. Is it wrong that we can laugh at them? Why does an amount of time judge whether we can think something is funny or not?

At the end of the day, (radical) Republicans hate when you make jokes poking fun at their policies, and (radical) Democrats hate when you make jokes poking fun at their policies. Is it not democratic for us to not only be allowed but encouraged to make fun of both sides? Is a failure or downside not to be mocked? If we do not mock what we dislike, how will we ever be able to replace what we dislike with what we like? And on the other side of the insults, how will we be able to protect what we like when it is under attack by people who dislike it?

After all, if you are right, you are obligated to prove it or be questioned. At least right now, that is the only thing I would die for.

For the record, I was born in 1966, which makes me one of the first citizens of Gen X. As one of its eldest statesmen, I can say that it is was and remains the finest generation. It was the last generation that considered tattoos only acceptable for those who once served in the military, lived in trailer parks, or served time in prison. When I was born, as the record reveals, the world was in black and white. Today we have cell phones and pornography availability previously unimaginable. The transition has been flawless for my generation of survivors. We are also the funniest and best looking generation, each and every one of more clever than the rest. My accession to moderator on this forum is precisely the type of success my generation has come to expect. — Hanover

I am glad that your transition into the modern world has been so flawless, and I wish you luck with the changes we all collectively have to deal with. I hope you continue to bless us with your good looks, comedy, and forum moderation.

I think at the end of the day, we have to accept that we are not good or bad. We will nourish and raise children who love us to their heart's content, but we will also authorize sending force to foreign lands that don't want or need our influence. If it is bad to laugh at what I laugh at, I suppose I am bad. But am I not good for giving my dog a good life? For making my friends laugh every day? For making my mother proud? I clearly cannot be just one or the other, and I'm sure no one else is either. Bad and good always exist within the same system, and if a few people need to get hurt to get to the moon, you're damn right most people would do it, and some people have.

We must rely on the young to think crazy and the old to think sane, no? — TogetherTurtle

No -- let's all try think sane. What young people ought to do (because if they don't do it when they are young, they never will) is follow their dreams. At least for a while--sometimes our dreams turn into nightmares, or at least headaches, and then it's time to try something else. And, just for your information, not all old people are thinking sanely. Some of us are stark raving mad. Crazy young people and insane old people are an unhealthy combo.

Anyway, that's probably what you meant by thinking crazy -- following your dreams.

But is it maybe crazy to think sane and sane to think crazy? — TogetherTurtle

Erich Fromm (one of Freud's students) wrote a book about that: The Sane Society. In crazy societies people who are INSANE are deemed to be quite normal, and in sane societies, crazy people are thought to be crazy. I think he concluded that a lot of contemporary societies are insane.

You have a positive, upbeat view of the future. Hang on to that.

You have a positive, upbeat view of the future. Hang on to that. — Bitter Crank

I'll try my hardest I guess. Most of the people I know accuse me of hating the world though. Maybe that ties into the sane/crazy dichotomy.

Anyway, that's probably what you meant by thinking crazy -- following your dreams. — Bitter Crank

I suppose so. They young pushing the limits of what is acceptable and the old pushing back. A delicate balance that decides whether a society lives or dies. Will we stagnate and never change, leading to our death, like Sparta? Or will we try to change everything at once and collapse as the Soviet Union did? Or maybe we can find a third way.

And, just for your information, not all old people are thinking sanely. Some of us are stark raving mad. Crazy young people and insane old people are an unhealthy combo. — Bitter Crank

I suppose we can't rely on everyone to do as they are needed to do. Or maybe they are needed in some other way.

I didn’t think it was funny really. I did find the comment about contacting the FBI funny though :)

This is a good one — TogetherTurtle

The sponge joke was moderately funny. I thought the Julius Caesar joke was not funny. Not offensive, just not funny.

I prefer things like The Soup Nazi from Seinfeld. Or, The Dingo Ate Yo Baby.

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

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”.

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”.

The darkness within comedy is always there. In comedy today there is something of a catharsis fro the audience. Difficult ideas can be approached and laughed about in a manner completely unbefitting of “serious” discourse. There always seems to be a strange pull between “embarrassment,” “guilt,” and “self-realisation” that are much more easily approached through the medium of comedy than by any other means - the depreciation of the self viewed through another seems key to this process.

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”?

The sponge joke was moderately funny. I thought the Julius Caesar joke was not funny. Not offensive, just not funny.

I prefer things like The Soup Nazi from Seinfeld. Or, The Dingo Ate Yo Baby. — Bitter Crank

The Soup Nazi was ok, I enjoyed the little clip in there where the woman got kicked out for no reason. The Dingo Ate Yo Baby was funny to me just because of how mean Elaine was to the weirdo.

As for the Caesar joke, I think that proves the point I was trying to make. You don't have to think it is funny, but some people did. You, however, weren't offended, where A close friend of Caesar probably would have been. My question is why does time have anything to do with what we can laugh at, and how do people decide how much time needs to pass before a Joke can be made? Also, what of the hypocrisy of people who think that the Caesar joke was funny but also have a grandpa who suffered in war and gets absolutely furious when anyone makes fun of that? I just don't see how the catalyst that leads to years of bloody war can be funny while years of bloody war can never be.

By the way, sorry for the mediocre at best comedy. I see a lot of garbage but a lot of good stuff too, and it's hard to remember anything worthwhile that isn't niche or too horrible to post even on an account I intend to stay anonymous on.