Comments on Political Humor (split from Political Humor)

[TheVat]

An ISRAELI CORPORATION

You have two cows. They come with guns. Move you to a dusty cowshed and take your cows. Then they bulldoze your cowshed and when you protest, they shoot you for being a terrorist. Then American taxpayers pay to replace the bullets. 

Then end times. 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/35130-political-humor/page/17/#comment-1228505

(post content from other thread added by moderator for context)

 

The joke takes a swipe at Israeli hardline policy, seems like.  Maybe not the greatest joke, but I would not want to start downvoting jokes.  Am counteracting the DV, not because I agree with all the premise of the joke but because I like this thread being one thread where people feel accepted to make weird or even smelly transgressive attempts at political humor.  (one can also Google "Palestinian olive trees destroyed" for further research on what triggers such jokes - quite the eye opener!)

[TheVat]

I feel my defense of Mr Mack's right to post a transgressive joke was misunderstood.  I am NOT supporting a political view, but rather that we not downvote on such subjective matters as to whether we find something funny or whether we disagree.  Down voting on dubious logic or evidence in a science forum, yes that makes more sense.  But here?  Could the person downvoting please just say what's got you riled up here and I will be glad to listen to you.  

[Lorentz Jr]

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

Am counteracting the DV, not because I agree with all the premise of the joke but because I like this thread being one thread where people feel accepted to make weird or even smelly transgressive attempts at political humor.

Same here. +1 to both of you.

35 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I feel my defense of Mr Mack's right to post a transgressive joke was misunderstood.

And such comments always will be. Fairness rules are strictly enforced until they work against the parties in charge.

[zapatos]

@TheVat

I didn't misunderstand you at all. If anything I thought you misunderstood mistermack.

This section is for Political Humor, it is not the Politics section. As silly as it might sound, people should show a little respect for the Political Humor section.

Simply dressing up a political rant in the form of a joke does not make it a joke. Even in the politics section this likely would have been seen as little more than a one-sided bitch about Israeli and American policy, and may well have been trashed.

Just my two cents.

P.S. I did not upvote or downvote your post as you and I simply interpreted mistermack's post differently. I did not think he was making any attempt at all to post a joke, which is what this section is reserved for.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

And such comments always will be. Fairness rules are strictly enforced until they work against the parties in charge.

Thanks for judging me and my willingness to be fair.

Edited February 5, 2023 by zapatos

[TheVat]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

didn't misunderstand you at all. If anything I thought you misunderstood mistermack.

This section is for Political Humor, it is not the Politics section. As silly as it might sound, people should show a little respect for the Political Humor section.

Simply dressing up a political rant in the form of a joke does not make it a joke. Even in the politics section this likely would have been seen as little more than a one-sided bitch about Israeli and American policy, and may well have been trashed.

Ok, cool.  Possible I may have misunderstood the intent there.  It is odd that it's a necropost in that it replies to a post that's 14 years old today.  

 

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

You have two cows. They come with guns.

Also going to say I was unaware that cows came with guns.

And that IS a joke.  (Using my standard formula of taking ambiguous sentence structure the most obtuse way possible)

[Lorentz Jr]

35 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Thanks for judging me and my willingness to be fair.

That wasn't specifically about you. I can't even find the post of yours that you and TheVat were discussing.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Lorentz Jr

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I can't even find the post of yours that you and TheVat were discussing.

I won’t judge you for it. I’m fair. 
 

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

 

I feel my defense of Mr Mack's right to post a transgressive joke was misunderstood. 

 

I also neither misunderstood nor up down vote you. 

[Moontanman]

I thought mistermack's joke was quite spot on my funny bone. I don't have anything against jews but israeli policy has long been lampooned for being somewhat less than gentle to those who dare to disabree with them. I don't hate israel as many who simply criticize them are accused of doing but I see no reason to kiss their ass either.  

[Phi for All]

On 2/4/2023 at 9:02 AM, TheVat said:

Maybe not the greatest joke, but I would not want to start downvoting jokes. 

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I don't hate israel as many who simply criticize them are accused of doing but I see no reason to kiss their ass either.  

And perhaps we're seeing a trend away from thinking generalizations about whole ethnic groups are funny. Personally, I think there are better sources of humor than outdated bigotry and persecution, or insulting groups based on the actions of some. 

And given that it was worded so poorly, the real joke is that anyone thought it was worth defending as humor. Ha ha!

 

[StringJunky]

Political humour by its subject matter is about ridiculing groups or individuals for their thinking and behaviour in some way... depending on which side one sits on. If one is going to engage in it, be fair to everyone and piss-take them too... 'equality', see.

Everyone has their 'taboo' subjects' and 8 Billion variations is too many to accommodate, so if you want to do it, do everyone. If people are offended by mistermack's post, I nuked the neg, then maybe they best stat away from political jokes because attacks their collective behaviour and not their being,which would be personal. Attack the behviour, not the person.

Edited February 8, 2023 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Political humour by its subject matter is about ridiculing groups or individuals for their thinking and behaviour in some way... depending on which side one sits on. If one is going to engage in it, be fair to everyone and piss-take them too... 'equality', see. Everyone has their 'taboo' subjects' and 8 Billion variations is too many to accommodate, so if you want to do it, do everyone.

There are two parts to a joke. Part one is as you describe above in bold. But that alone does not constitute humor. You still need the part where you have two concepts playing off each other, or you suddenly change the direction of thought the story was leading you on.

It is not humor if I say "Trump has ties to Russia." Or "Trump is a big, fat jerk." 

On the other hand...

Q. Why are Trump's ties so long?

A. Because they reach all the way to Russia.

... is humor (good or bad) because it met some requirement of humor, in this case causing the listener to have to recognize the two meanings of the word "ties" and be aware of current events.

I am not objecting to jokes about anyone or anything. I just think that if you post in Political Humor then the post shouldn't be just about politics, but should also include some humor. If it doesn't include humor, then post it in Politics.

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I am not objecting to jokes about anyone or anything. I just think that if you post in Political Humor then the post shouldn't be just about politics, but should also include some humor. If it doesn't include humor, then post it in Politics.

Humour is in the mind of the beholder. If a joke is too dark to be seen by you, thats not the authour's fault.

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Humour is in the mind of the beholder. If a joke is too dark to be seen by you, thats not the authour's fault.

It is not his fault if I don't see the element of humor, but it is his fault if he doesn't include an element of humor.

On the other hand if it makes you laugh when I say "Trump is a big, fat jerk.", then I admit to having no understanding of your sense of humor.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

It is not his fault if I don't see the element of humor, but it is his fault if he doesn't include an element of humor.

On the other hand if it makes you laugh when I say "Trump is a big, fat jerk.", then I admit to having no understanding of your sense of humor.

We are not all made the same way, so what tickles our individual funny bones is individual.

[TheVat]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We are not all made the same way, so what tickles our individual funny bones is individual.

AFAICT, the joke Mr Mack was trying for was playing off a 2009 post which also began with "you have two cows."  Which I didn't backtrack to 2009 and read, but presume was some sort of political commentary on economic ideologies.   Now y'all got me curious...

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Humour is in the mind of the beholder. If a joke is too dark to be seen by you, thats not the authour's fault.

Oooh, I very much disagree with this! This is carte blanche for a diseased, hateful mind. This supports all kinds of victim blaming, stereotypes, and callous insensitivity. Why should humor be allowed to violate taboos we hold others accountable for? This sentiment allows me to say whatever I feel like saying, and to hell with how hurtful it is to some in the audience. It allows a hateful comic to become the victim of "snowflake sensitivity".

Do you really believe the "author" of a joke should be forgiven for whatever they say?

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We are not all made the same way, so what tickles our individual funny bones is individual.

Of course. And some people think the World Trade Center attack was a government conspiracy and that Jewish space lasers started forest fires in the American west. I'm under no obligation to appreciate anyone's take on either current events or so-called humor.

[TheVat]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Oooh, I very much disagree with this! This is carte blanche for a diseased, hateful mind. This supports all kinds of victim blaming, stereotypes, and callous insensitivity. Why should humor be allowed to violate taboos we hold others accountable for? This sentiment allows me to say whatever I feel like saying, and to hell with how hurtful it is to some in the audience. It allows a hateful comic to become the victim of "snowflake sensitivity".

Do you really believe the "author" of a joke should be forgiven for whatever they say?

While I agree that there are some reasonable bounds on jokes - like cruelty and racist attacks - I didn't really see attacking Israeli West Bank policies of razing farms and groves and grabbing land as in such a taboo category.  Mac wasn't being anti-Semitic, just anti-RW regime.  If you read Shadow's 2009 joke, Mac's makes way more sense in that context. (it's on page one)

[StringJunky]

18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Oooh, I very much disagree with this! This is carte blanche for a diseased, hateful mind. This supports all kinds of victim blaming, stereotypes, and callous insensitivity. Why should humor be allowed to violate taboos we hold others accountable for? This sentiment allows me to say whatever I feel like saying, and to hell with how hurtful it is to some in the audience. It allows a hateful comic to become the victim of "snowflake sensitivity".

Do you really believe the "author" of a joke should be forgiven for whatever they say?

In principle, who is the objective arbiter of what constitutes offensive or not? 

Edited February 8, 2023 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

20 minutes ago, TheVat said:

While I agree that there are some reasonable bounds on jokes - like cruelty and racist attacks - I didn't really see attacking Israeli West Bank policies of razing farms and groves and grabbing land as in such a taboo category.  Mac wasn't being anti-Semitic, just anti-RW regime.  If you read Shadow's 2009 joke, Mac's makes way more sense in that context. (it's on page one)

It's really not about a category. IMHO, it wasn't a worthy joke. It was poorly worded, inconsistent, and the punchline sucked pond water. IT WASN'T FUNNY, so I'm left with the conclusion that it was meant to disparage two large groups of people, Israelis and Americans. You can claim it was meant to "poke fun", but then you have to show me where this joke was funny in the first place.

In point of fact, people were willing to assess that joke using the rep system until you decided to defend it with a post (which didn't contain ANY political humor), in which even you claimed the joke wasn't very good. I have to ask you too, do you really believe the author/teller of a joke is free from responsibility, that they can say whatever they want and the audience should just accept it?

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

In principle, who is the objective arbiter of what constitutes offensive or not? 

Why do we need an objective arbiter? Can't we just let the joke-teller know how we feel individually? I thought that's what I was doing when I downvoted mistermack's attempt at humor, but now you're saying he's protected from my criticism. You cancelled my downvote, which was based on the same parameters I use for any joke, but it sounds like you didn't do it because you thought the joke was funny. You did it because you thought we shouldn't be offended when we obviously were. 

[StringJunky]

38 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's really not about a category. IMHO, it wasn't a worthy joke. It was poorly worded, inconsistent, and the punchline sucked pond water. IT WASN'T FUNNY, so I'm left with the conclusion that it was meant to disparage two large groups of people, Israelis and Americans. You can claim it was meant to "poke fun", but then you have to show me where this joke was funny in the first place.

In point of fact, people were willing to assess that joke using the rep system until you decided to defend it with a post (which didn't contain ANY political humor), in which even you claimed the joke wasn't very good. I have to ask you too, do you really believe the author/teller of a joke is free from responsibility, that they can say whatever they want and the audience should just accept it?

Why do we need an objective arbiter? Can't we just let the joke-teller know how we feel individually? I thought that's what I was doing when I downvoted mistermack's attempt at humor, but now you're saying he's protected from my criticism. You cancelled my downvote, which was based on the same parameters I use for any joke, but it sounds like you didn't do it because you thought the joke was funny. You did it because you thought we shouldn't be offended when we obviously were. 

I've put your neg back. Just scrolled through 18 pages and you have the distinction of being the first to do so. I hope that is not a precursor to what has happened to sport.

Edited February 8, 2023 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

32 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I've put your neg back. Just scrolled through 18 pages and you have the distinction of being the first to do so. I hope that is not a precursor to what has happened to sport.

Or there were 8 votes on that joke, with half being negative and the other half trying to undo the first half. Unless you truly thought it was funny, but Moontanman is the only one who said that.

Part of why I didn't like the joke is that it was obviously copied and pasted here, with no attempt to clean up it's sloppy wording. mistermack is funnier that that normally, and his timing is much, much better. It seemed to me he was posting the joke for the politics involved and not the humor. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Phi for All
added thought

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Or there were 8 votes on that joke, with half being negative and the other half trying to undo the first half. Unless you truly thought it was funny....

It depends where you stand on the political spectrum. There are people, like myself, that don't like the US cosying up to the fascist/hypocritical Israeli regime. I'm anti-zionist but not anti-jewish, just like many thousands of Ultra Orthodox diaspora that think 'Israel' is a an insult to the Torah. 'Israel' is a  spiritual place where their prophet will be... when he comes. Looks they hijacked Jesus as their prophet when they took  Palestine as their own  It's all the West's fault for facilliting it after the war, after being nagged for forty years or more. What the Nazis did sealed the deal.

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It depends where you stand on the political spectrum. There are people, like myself, that don't like the US cosying up to the fascist/hypocritical Israeli regime. I'm anti-zionist but not anti-jewish, just like many thousands of Ultra Orthodox diaspora that think 'Israel' is a insult to the Torah. 

What do you call a joke that isn't funny? A sentence.

Regardless of what we don't like, is it ever right to attach that dislike to whole groups of people? The joke referenced Israelis and Americans, not anti-Zionists and fascist US hardliners, that was how YOU took it. And criticising "Israel" as a state for its policies is different than labeling all Israelis as being one way or another.

Honestly, comedy isn't an excuse we should use to throw decency out the window. I know there are a LOT of folks who think, as an art form, that it should have no restrictions, but I'll never be one of those. I've seen too many "comedians" vent their prejudices only to claim later "it was just a joke, can't you take a joke?" 

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What do you call a joke that isn't funny? A sentence.

Regardless of what we don't like, is it ever right to attach that dislike to whole groups of people? The joke referenced Israelis and Americans, not anti-Zionists and fascist US hardliners, that was how YOU took it. And criticising "Israel" as a state for its policies is different than labeling all Israelis as being one way or another.

Honestly, comedy isn't an excuse we should use to throw decency out the window. I know there are a LOT of folks who think, as an art form, that it should have no restrictions, but I'll never be one of those. I've seen too many "comedians" vent their prejudices only to claim later "it was just a joke, can't you take a joke?" 

Fresh of the press. Charlie Hebdo. "Earthquake in Turkey, We don't need to send in tanks". Not funny to me...but acceptable in France.

No disrespect Phi, but you are posting as if there is a universal standard of what is or not acceptable as if it's intrinsic.

Corrected cockup. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by StringJunky