Humor/Comedy
- Thread starter speed
- Start date
That's nothing, I'm now posting video of myself playing guitar in my pajamas.
Maybe I'll move to boxers eventually.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGcEAndCEIg
Maybe I'll move to boxers eventually.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGcEAndCEIg
speed said:
To me, the most brilliant comedy is the product of great wit - that ability to see the world for what it is and "cut to the heart of the matter" in a fashion that elucidates the frivolity of the human condition. It is the product of a certain intelligence. In the same way that an Einstein or Hawking can look at the universe and intuitively determine its underpinnings, a master of wit can look into the human condition and understand (and present) it in a way that demonstrates a viewpoint that many of us understand on some level but can not make clear to ourselves if left to our own devices. The foundation of the humor, to my mind, lies in the simple fact that We are so mired in the course of our lives that we often have difficulty in seeing some grander picture of that life - a life that is composed of actions that seem to have solid meaning in the microcosm of daily activity but that are inherently foolish when cast against the backdrop all possible human action.
Then there are other forms of humor that I find as banal and displeasing as I find wit impressive and inspiring. Of these, two types in particular are "Physical Comedy" and, for lack of a better term, "The Inside Joke."
Physical humor is that Jackass fodder to which Nile577 and OldScratch make reference. Want to make a toddler laugh? Pretend to trip and fall down. Basic child psychology explains why this works: A toddler - who is thoroughly frustrated with the inability to walk (or walk well), despite the greatest desire to do so, finds great relief in others demonstrating ineptitude within the same arena that gives him so much torment. There is a joyful release that culminates in laughter (a physical reaction to joy). The idea that others are foolish (as the toddler feels himself to be) is a great relief. I have specifically chosen to again use the word "foolish" here - I understand why this type of humor is well received, I just don't key into it.
"The Inside Joke" is worse to me than physical humor. I understand physical humor - it just doesn't appeal to me. Inside jokes, on the other hand, are, IMO, failed attempts at wit. An inside joke requires that you understand the reference - the reference is, in a sense, the punchline. Ergo, if you know the reference you "understand" the joke; if you don't know the reference, there is nothing there. My Diogenes bit (see above) is a great example: If you know Diogenes, you get the reference and the joke (The joke is exactly as speed explains it: "The punchline was like Diogenes, he didnt find another real man."). Diogenes is witty; I was simply making reference to Diogenes - not really humorous in its own right.
***
Why has everyone become so afraid to offend?
Well, to keep it Socratic, I think we fear the hemlock. In this day, there are many roadblocks to offensive commentary and sometimes it is too much to make anything offensive a viable avenue of expression. The idea of political correctness is rooted in the desire for one man to treat another with respect, but it has been taken to such extremes that to act outside the construct of acceptable social moray is to run up against the mob that would sooner hand you a scarlet letter than endgender the ideas behind your "offensive statements." Wit has been relegated to a "sharp barb" that can not pierce the protective PC layer that emulsifies that mob...and if the point can not be communicated, the idea is lost.
Why has everyone become so afraid to offend?
Well, to keep it Socratic, I think we fear the hemlock. In this day, there are many roadblocks to offensive commentary and sometimes it is too much to make anything offensive a viable avenue of expression. The idea of political correctness is rooted in the desire for one man to treat another with respect, but it has been taken to such extremes that to act outside the construct of acceptable social moray is to run up against the mob that would sooner hand you a scarlet letter than endgender the ideas behind your "offensive statements." Wit has been relegated to a "sharp barb" that can not pierce the protective PC layer that emulsifies that mob...and if the point can not be communicated, the idea is lost.[/QUOTE]
This speaks volumes about our modern society. Even before the PC madness took root, the strong desire to never offend was common in polite society. In the Victorian era, to offend was considered ill-mannered, uncultured behavior. And before this, it was a recurring theme in the writings of Lord Chesterfield - that little betrayed an individual as being poorly bred, so much as the act of offending another...even unintentionally - a true Gentleman would know better!
But, as ARC150 noted, this desire for social grace or politeness has been not only been blown out of all proportion, but become a sort of social/intellectual tyranny. We are collectively terrified of offending almost ANYONE!
So completely out of control is this mind-set that we increasingly seek to "protect" the various "victim" groups from alleged offense by criminalizing the act. How chilling and regressive this is. But in an age where a young man stapling his scrotum to his leg is considered entertainment, to be celebrated on TV and film, I suppose it is little wonder society is struggling to find some sort of cultural equilibrium.
Well, to keep it Socratic, I think we fear the hemlock. In this day, there are many roadblocks to offensive commentary and sometimes it is too much to make anything offensive a viable avenue of expression. The idea of political correctness is rooted in the desire for one man to treat another with respect, but it has been taken to such extremes that to act outside the construct of acceptable social moray is to run up against the mob that would sooner hand you a scarlet letter than endgender the ideas behind your "offensive statements." Wit has been relegated to a "sharp barb" that can not pierce the protective PC layer that emulsifies that mob...and if the point can not be communicated, the idea is lost.[/QUOTE]
This speaks volumes about our modern society. Even before the PC madness took root, the strong desire to never offend was common in polite society. In the Victorian era, to offend was considered ill-mannered, uncultured behavior. And before this, it was a recurring theme in the writings of Lord Chesterfield - that little betrayed an individual as being poorly bred, so much as the act of offending another...even unintentionally - a true Gentleman would know better!
But, as ARC150 noted, this desire for social grace or politeness has been not only been blown out of all proportion, but become a sort of social/intellectual tyranny. We are collectively terrified of offending almost ANYONE!
So completely out of control is this mind-set that we increasingly seek to "protect" the various "victim" groups from alleged offense by criminalizing the act. How chilling and regressive this is. But in an age where a young man stapling his scrotum to his leg is considered entertainment, to be celebrated on TV and film, I suppose it is little wonder society is struggling to find some sort of cultural equilibrium.
Xorv said:
I dont know if its a fact, but its damn close to one. This board is a good example: some dislike potty humor, dick jokes, physical humor; others dislike highbrow jokes, and love dick jokes.
I pretty much laugh at everything: I actually will watch and laugh at Jackass. I'm just concerned with how a great deal of humor is no longer politically correct or accepted anymore.
Vital Remains
Just a Man
ARC150 said:
Well, I think you're indirectly trying to lay a foundation for "why we laugh" in the first place which is a good direction, but I'll comment on that later.
I do however think you in your interpretation (based of course on what you think most psychologists believe) are giving toddlers entirely too much credit here, especially when you consider how deficient and immature they are in so many developmental respects.
If I had to hazard a guess, I would say you made all that up. If you could back this up at all please do, but at such an age it's really very ignorant of everything else in the field of childhood psychology to assume a small child who could barely walk has an ability to understand who they are, let alone their own behaviour in relation to others, and others behaviours in response to their own at any level enough of which to laugh.
Similar threads
