RoR: Forum

I just posted something, and it didn't show up. Let's see if this does.

Bill

Post 61

Thursday, May 3, 2007 - 9:35pm

Ye becoming transparent, Bill? ;-)

Post 62

Thursday, May 3, 2007 - 10:22pm

Yeah, you can see right through me, so you don't to see my posts! God, I hope not! ;-)

Post 63

Saturday, May 5, 2007 - 11:15pm

Steve,

I've felt a growing sense of unreality on different threads. People who want to engage in wars of liberation, people who believe it is okay to kill babies, anarchists.... These things conflict with the basics of Objectivism as I know it and have been disheartening for me.

For what it's worth, Steve ...

-But I, for one, don't "want to engage in wars of liberation" -- My main beef with the Iraq War is that we were never -- and may never be -- told exactly why we needed to be there (this is true as the 115 million US taxpayers' ante for the war is approaching, I believe, $4000 per taxpayer)

-But I, for one, don't "believe it is okay to kill babies" -- (even if my rational justification, one involving the very survival of the species in a "Natural Law" kind of way, is different from your own rational justification, which involves tacit contracts)

-But I, for one, don't believe the "anarchists" -- (something eloquently demonstrated here)

I don't like the kind of contention that has been a part of my exchanges in recent weeks and I especially don't like the way this thread made me feel.

Fair enough, Steve (though, like Teresa, I hope you return soon). We seem to think differently on this, though ...

In the Fountainhead (yes folks, I've finished it now -- with Erica's help!) Toohey worked by ridiculing the good. Remember the picture in the Banner of Roark with the caption akin to: "Are you happy now, Superman?", and he meant it with the most malicious intent. Rand spoke of humor being inherent denigration. But I agree with another viewpoint on this matter -- that what is being denigrated here is actually tribalism or collectivism.

Comedy is bad when it takes something good, and then denigrates it. Comedy is good when it does the opposite. This joke seems to do just that. It seems to take something that is not good (a tribalist/collectivist reference: Ho) -- and makes fun of it. When evaluating a joke, we have to ask what of which we are really making fun. Sure, we can also ask what kinds of things that mistaken others might draw from our joke, and there's some value to that (real gentlemen never insult unintentionally) -- but thorough evaluation always involves essentials.

What's essential about a joke that makes fun of something that isn't good (a tribalist/collectivist reference: Ho)? George Orwell used humor in order to make fun of collectivism -- in Animal Farm, I believe -- when he said that some of us were "more equal" than others were. Making fun of collectivism is always a good thing (because it "deserves" to be denigrated).

Sometimes there may be 'causalities' in doing so (because some folks were mistakenly collectivist when they heard the joke). Maybe there's a better way to make and tell jokes about collectivism -- without offending folks who are mistakenly collectivist in their thinking.

But my main point is, is that jokes denigrating -- i.e., making fun of -- collectivism, and of all collectivist thinking, should not ever be censored (and I don't just mean "legally censored").

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/05, 11:19pm)

Post 64

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 2:31am

Thank you, Ed - was wondering if anyone was going to grasp what was mentioned in post 52, namely the nature of humor - and that the importance involves what the humor is being directed at, and that it is not always so obvious at first glance, being more a visceral response.....

Post 65

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 6:07am

Exactly what Ed said.

Post 66

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 7:57am

Great post, Ed. And, Teresa, you've made wonderful posts throughout this thread. You definitely take the dumb out of "dumb blonde." BTW, my blonde wife just e-mailed me a "dumb blonde" joke.

I've always laughed hysterically at comedian Don Rickles, the "king of insults." I remember ROFL when I saw him and Little Richard together on The Tonight Show in the seventies. I saw Rickles perform live three years ago. His show is entirely based on picking out members of the audience and making fun of their ethnic/racial backgrounds. And the audience loves him for it.

Many people love Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles which is rampant with racial/ethnic and every other kind of politically incorrect humor you can think of.

And I've always loved Randy Newman's "Short People". And yes, I'm short.

George Orwell used humor in order to make fun of collectivism -- in Animal Farm, I believe -- when he said that some of us were "more equal" than others were.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
George Orwell, Animal Farm

"Some Objectivists are more Objectivist than other Objectivists."
Me, this post

(Edited by Bob Palin on 5/06, 8:05am)

Post 67

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 8:12am

And--think about this--Blazing Saddles' message is specifically anti-racism.

Post 68

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 5:29pm

PC-guide for proper response to jokes:
~ For 'X', fill in any of the following: 1) ethnic, 2) race, 3) hair-color, 4) gender-preference, 5) sex-biology, 6) religious-belief, 7) political-partisanship. (Actually, the latter's kind of iffy.)
~ When can an 'X' joke be one that's not insulting to those who see themselves as, or proxily-identify with those in, the group 'X'? --- When the joke-tellers themselves belong to group 'X'. Elsewise, all other joke-tellers are insensitive, 'offending' bigots. Those who laugh at the joke fall in the same class as the joke teller.

'Nuff said.

LLAP
J:D

Post 69

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 5:41pm

Addendum:

Meant to add 'Redneck' but,

a) didn't quite know how to generically categorize it (Uneducated American? Nope, too many'd consider that redundant. Ignorant 'Boys-Club' Tribal Member? Nope, way too anti-PC generic; might even hint at the 3rd-world, fer god's sakes.)

b) besides, only them dum Rednecks would be offended anyways, so, who, worthwhile, really cares? --- MORE 'REDNECK' JOKES !!!

LLAP
J:D

Post 70

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 5:15am

THERE WILL BE ONLY 49 CONTESTANTS IN THE MISS BLACK AMERICA CONTEST THIS YEAR, BECAUSE NO ONE IN THE POTATO STATE WANTS TO WEAR THE RIBBON THAT SAYS "IDAHO". (Bob Palin, post #0)

For the record: I found this comment so hilarious, I laughed out loud when I first saw it. Didn't quite get the Santa joke at first, but I found nothing offensive in either. Ed T's explanation of humor nailed it perfectly.

Of course, I found the whole Don Imus "controversy" utterly ridiculous, too:

Sure, Imus owed the team a public apology...but...he owed no-one-else, much less the likes of Sharpton and his followers. (John Dailey)

What John said. Exactly.

Erica

Post 71

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 11:46am

I found the Imus comment offensive, but then you have to consider its source, which somewhat mitigates it. Imus is like a cartoon character, and it's difficult to take a cartoon character seriously. ;-) I must say, though, that I loved it when he lampooned the Clintons while speaking in their presence. Hillary was sitting there giving him a forced smile.

- Bill

Post 72

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 5:28pm

Redneck is a term of abuse by upper-class whites (who do not need to labor outside) toward lower-class whites whose sunburnt red necks contrast with the white skin below their collars.

Ted

Post 73

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 9:57am

I agree with Bill Dwyer as well, on the actual comment by Imus. Sort of.

I wasn't personally offended; I am not a member of the Rutgers Womens' basketball team.
I thought what he said was mean, unfounded, and highly inappropriate regarding those particular women.

But I also do not believe he should have lost his job over it. He's a "shock jock." They say stupid things to be "shocking." It's what they do. Whatever. Don't like it? Change the goddamn channel.

Interestingly, I was more upset at the way he handled the ensuing controversy...going on Sharpton's show, apologizing to anyone and everyone, kneeling before politically correct public opinion, offering himself up as a contrite little lamb, desperately hoping that the slaughterhouse would spare him...I wish I knew his phone number. I could have told him how that would end. Perhaps it is a good thing he's off the air; after this, he never would have been the same anyway. Whatever made him "Imus", loved by millions of loyal listeners, would have been permanently altered. He would have been effectively neutered, much like Wynand in The Fountainhead. Bill Maher said something to this effect when interviewed about the Imus affair; he was saddened to see this guy reduced to begging for forgiveness from all of America for something he said, in order to try to save his livelihood.

To anyone wondering, I am not personally familiar with the Imus show. I don't know what he usually says, but I have always been aware of his enormous popularity. And frankly, I don't need to know about him. I don't have to like him to find his reduction to contrite beggar of everyone's forgiveness disturbing, and sad.

A character on a tv show I used to watch once said, "Never apologize for who you are...the world is an unforgiving place." I loved that line, and (obviously) never forgot it.
Talk about something that is true, has always been true, and will always be true!

Erica

Post 74

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 12:25pm