Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gender and Humor
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 212 of 269 (561624)
05-21-2010 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Straggler
05-21-2010 7:32 PM


Re: Reluctant Involvement - But Compelled to Join In
This to me is the clinching point.
I almost just replied with that, because to me it summed up the entire discussion. The other stuff is a lot of he-said-she-said crap that is a bit pointless to continue...but I'll be damned if I'll EVER let Rrhain get the last word.
And you and Rrhain have obviously got some past chemistry going on which adds extra spice to the whole affair.
Truth be told, I actually like his arrogance and find it fun to debate him. In this thread he seemed to take it a bit personal. Don't know why, he and I have tangled before, and although it gets heated, it's never been like in this thread.
My opinion (for what it is worth) is that whilst the woman in the vid has every right to complain if she feels offended her basic premise that she is somehow speaking for "the nation" or "the people" is ridiculous.
I agree. Speak up, be heard, but don't take your opinion too serious. You don't speak for a nation you're just speaking for yourself.
But IMHO he was kinda a dick about it and he never made the most salient point that you now have.
Without a doubt he was a complete dick, but he was that type of person to her condescending attitude. She was not there to have a discussion, no one who's sincere about a cause starts off with those PC talking point like "the nation has spoke."
FoxNews pinned two people with opposing personalities because they knew what it would develop into.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2010 7:32 PM Straggler has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 215 of 269 (562425)
05-28-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Rrhain
05-28-2010 3:50 PM


Now, can we get to the work of discussing the joke in order to determine if it was an act of comedy or cruelty?
Probably not cos you're gonna keep acting like a fag. No, homo...?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Rrhain, posted 05-28-2010 3:50 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2010 6:36 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 225 of 269 (563666)
06-06-2010 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Rrhain
06-05-2010 6:31 AM


Oni writes:
He was there representing comedy and comedians and jokes in general, not to defend himself or a joke he said.
Rrhain writes:
In order to "represent comedy and comedians," he needs to defend the joke as an act of comedy
Can you follow what we're talking about? What I'm saying is that he wasn't there to defend HIMSELF or a joke HE SAID.
We know Ralph is never going to do it not because he is physically incapable of getting within five feet of Alice but rather because we know that it simply isn't in him to do it. It's all an act, nothing but bluster
So was Homeless Charlie just an act...nothing but bluster.
You do realize that what makes it an act of cruelty and not comedy is that Homeless Charlie meant it, right?
He didn't mean it. It was part of a radio bit. It was meant as a joke.
Right, because the physical phonemes, "ju stu-pId bItsh, kant ju taik aI dzhok," didn't escape his lips, then there is no possible way that that's what he was saying.
No, I agree that he could have meant that, but he didn't say it! so you're just wasting your time speculating.
Just because people laugh doesn't mean it's comedy. Cruel people laugh at their cruel actions upon others, but that doesn't make what they do comedic.
Agreed. It would definitely depend on what we're discussing. Raping Rice is not funny, doing a bit about raping Rice may be funny.
That he will never be able to gain physical proximity in order to carry it out doesn't mean he didn't mean it. And if he meant it, then it wasn't comedy.
It was a radio bit, he didn't mean he actually wanted to rape her. It was done as a joke.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2010 6:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2010 7:10 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 230 of 269 (563959)
06-07-2010 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Rrhain
06-05-2010 6:36 AM


Rrhain and his loud Harley...
Oni writes:
Probably not cos you're gonna keep acting like a fag. No, homo...?
Rrhain writes:
And still the obsession with getting my dick up your ass to dose you with my DNA continues.
See, that's how a fag would respond. Not a homosexual, again, I'm being careful here to be specific about how I'm using the word 'fag'.
You revert back to the same lame joke. How is me calling you a fag mean that I want to have sex with you? Even South Park did an entire episode about Harley riders being called fags, does that mean Matt and Trey want to fuck you too?
Here's what I've gathered from this thread so far. Usually, for the most part I should say, you present a very good argument when debating. I've read a lot of it. When you are in the right you argue well.
But... in this thread you couldn't be more wrong. You have absolutely lost. You are arguing in circles, contradicting yourself, and trying to spin crap into a decent argument all the while looking stupid in doing so. You are also out matched in the humor dept. This is when the fag in you comes out, when you're backed up against a wall of evidence against you and you have nothing else to contribute that will help your position.
Basically, when you're losing you turn into a bitch...or a fag, either word will do. It's pathetic to see. It really has made me realize that no matter how smart or well educated someone is, when they don't know what the fuck they're talking about they can sound really fucking stupid.
Here are the facts:
I agree with Straggler and the fag that Patrice could have done a better job with the interview, but he, like probably I would have, got frustrated by the woman's arrogance so he didn't do as good a job as he may have been able to. On this point I will concede.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2010 6:36 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2010 1:54 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 239 of 269 (566927)
06-28-2010 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Rrhain
06-26-2010 7:10 AM


Oni writes:
What I'm saying is that he wasn't there to defend HIMSELF or a joke HE SAID.
Rrhain writes:
Indeed. Now think: Why was he there? He proclaimed himself to be an "expert on funny." OK...so what was this "funny" that required the services of an expert?
He was there to defend O&A's position, to defend their joke, to explain why it was an act of comedy, not cruelty.
No, I won't say to "defend their joke," I didn't get that from the interviewer at all. I felt he was there to give his expert opinion on the joke and on the entire issue as it relates to censorship.
Other than that point, I agree.
And he failed miserably. At no point did he give any justification as to why Ms. Ossario was wrong. Instead, he spent the entire time denigrating everybody else there as "having nothing to do with funny," interrupting Ms. Ossario at every turn, and literally being reduced to shouting.
I have already conceded that he could have done a better job, but I still think his point was made clear - She is not in the business of funny so why is she sticking her nose in it?
Now, relax yourself for a second before you lash out into another manifesto. What I mean by "she's not in the business of funny so why is she sticking her nose in it" is not intended to mean she doesn't have the right to speak up. Anyone can speak up. Everyone has the right to be heard. Got that for now?
However, not everyone is an expert in certain fields so their opinion on the matter, while well within their right to give, is useless. My opinion on music, while important to me, doesn't mean shit since I have no experience in music.
Give your opinion, if you wish, but don't expect someone who's been in that particular field (in this case comedy) for over 20 years to value it too much.
Oni writes:
So was Homeless Charlie just an act...nothing but bluster.
Rrhain writes:
Really? Why? What is your justification that he didn't really mean it? It certainly sounded like he meant it.
Right, that's what acting and performing is supposed to do, give you the listener/viewer the sense of realism. I take the fact that it was done as a radio comedy bit to mean it was part of a comedy routinue being done on the O&A show.
Are you saying that it is impossible for someone to say something they think is a joke and not realize that they have misjudged things? That so long as the person who says it thinks it's funny, then it is and that's that?
WTF?
No, when did I say this? I have repeatedly said that the market will judge what funny is, an audience, people. That's who says something is funny. That's why comics get on stage over and over every single night doing as many bits as they can fit into their time slot, to see if an audience finds it funny.
Oni writes:
No, I agree that he could have meant that, but he didn't say it!
Rrhain writes:
Right, because the physical phonemes, "ju stu-pId bItsh, kant ju taik aI dzhok," didn't escape his lips, then there is no possible way that that's what he was saying.
Yes, he didn't say it so it is a FACT that that's NOT what he was saying.
Let us not play dumb and pretend that that wasn't precisely what he was saying. Over half of his sentences were just that.
It could be what he felt, or was thinking, or wrote in his diary, or tattooed to his cock, BUT HE DIDN'T SAY IT.
I have agreed with you that the physical string of syllables, "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke" did not escape his lips. However, I have provided plenty of his quotes indicating that is precisely what he meant.
And how did I respond to you? You fucking quoted it...
quote:
No, I agree that he could have meant that, but he didn't say it!
  —Oni
So you can stop parroting your original claim.
Where is your analysis showing that this particular bit of O&A's was comedic in nature?
I found it funny.
Surely you don't mean to claim that someone who finds cruelty to be funny is sufficient to conclude that the act of cruelty really is comedic?
Making jokes about cruel acts is funny, has always been funny, and will continue to be funny. There are many rape jokes that are hilarious, but no one has claimed that the act of committing rape is funny in and of itself.
Homeless Charlie made an attempt to be funny, it failed in the eyes of a few/many (who knows the exact numbers) but it didn't in the eyes of others, me being one of them.
My point? What makes it "funny" is not solely in the mind of the one telling the joke.
Rrhain, I can point to at least a dozen times where I have said that the audience decides what's funny.
If the audeince listening to the O&A show found the bit funny, would that be good enough for you?
But O&A did not give any indication that they were making fun of Homeless Charlie.
Do you mean Homeless Charlie the character that ever now and again is given air time to say whatever crazy thing comes out of his mind in an attempt to have fun on the air and do a bit with him? HE IS THE BIT. HOMELESS CHARLIE.
Not that what he said was a bit, HE, Homeless Charlie, like Beatle Juice on Howard Stern is the bit when he's given air time.
"That's exactly what I meant." Huh? We've suddenly gone from making comments that might only be about how someone is uptight and we've wandered into advocating assault. Anthony is actually advocating assault.
Opie & Anthony banter with him and egg him on, they've done it before, for a long time. Charlie knew where O&A wanted him to take the bit because, (1) they've done it in past interviews, and (2) it is O&A bring up the violent act. They set Homeless Charlie up.
It's a bit dude, and if you listened to O&A before you'd know that. That's why a lot of the listeners found it funny, including me. This is why out of context PC cunts and fags can make anything look as though it is meant one way, when it is not.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2010 7:10 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 240 of 269 (566929)
06-28-2010 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rrhain
06-26-2010 1:54 PM


I covered all the details about the interview in the above post, but I had to respond to this:
Oni writes:
How is me calling you a fag mean that I want to have sex with you?
Rrahin writes:
Because it is a sexual reference.
The word 'fag' is a sexual reference???
Evidence please.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2010 1:54 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Rahvin, posted 06-28-2010 7:00 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 242 of 269 (566947)
06-28-2010 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Rahvin
06-28-2010 7:00 PM


Re: Fag?
I'm fairly certain that the word "fag" refers to a cigarette.
Yeah, Rrhain is a cigarette... that likes to blow other cigarettes.
That, or an extremely loud and obnoxious person, typically of limited intelligence, who insists on being as disruptive to other people as humanly possible, especially when pertaining to Harley Davidson enthusiasts.
The official South Park definition, thanks, dude. I don't know why Rrhain keeps bringing up that I'd like to have sex with him. He knows exactly what it means. What a fucking cigarette...
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Rahvin, posted 06-28-2010 7:00 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Rahvin, posted 06-28-2010 8:08 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 244 of 269 (566955)
06-28-2010 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Rahvin
06-28-2010 8:08 PM


Re: Fag?
Yes, that means that for some people off-color jokes, including jokes about gays and races and religions and whatever, actually help to bring attention to the subjects and to help mainstream folks accept those subsets of society as normal and harmless.
There is a "line" where things stop being funny, but that line is subjective and different for everyone.
A lot of comics push and push until someone says, "Hey, stop, that's the line." The best comics keep going.
It's those jokes that cross the line that eventually set the standard for where the *new* line will be... till it gets crossed again. Carlin's "7 Words," Rock's "Nigga vs Black People," Lenny Bruce's breakdown of religion, Bill Hick's jokes about pro-life people...all of these were once considered taboos and "lines" not to be crossed. Carlin arrested, Bruce arrested, Hick's murdered by David Letterman (censored). But now-a-days everything they said and did can be done on networks or basic cable. In fact, Letterman finally aired the Bill Hicks set that he once censored.
There is no line, there never has been.
What absolutely offends Rrhain might make me roll on the ground laughing, or vice versa.
Some people, of course, just can't take a joke.
What gets me, and he can chime in when he reads this is, he knows exactly how I'm using the word. It's usually liberals that break through the "word" taboos anyway - it's always been our side (and I just mean non-conservative, not Dem/Rep) that pushes the lines. Why he's acting like a douche about it I don't know.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Rahvin, posted 06-28-2010 8:08 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Rahvin, posted 06-28-2010 9:29 PM onifre has replied
 Message 246 by AZPaul3, posted 06-29-2010 12:01 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 256 of 269 (567104)
06-29-2010 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Rahvin
06-28-2010 9:29 PM


Re: Fag?
I just think that things that are offensive are usually funny, that blasphemy tickles me, and that mocking sacred cows and poking fun of social taboos is generally the way to increase general understanding from the unwashed masses. After all, Billy Bob in Arkansas isn't likely to read through one of Rrhain's outraged diatribes, what with Billy's 3rd grade reading ability. But he is likely to laugh while watching Comedy Central, and making him laugh about the buttsex is one of the best ways to make him stop hating it.
Yeah, I agree. That's why it even works better when cartoons do the offensive material, like South Park and Family Guy. Because now it's not even a person, it's a cartoon character smoking weed, calling people fags, making jewish jokes. But you're right that it is a great way to make people realize that they shouldn't hate, but rather have fun with those taboos.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Rahvin, posted 06-28-2010 9:29 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 257 of 269 (567106)
06-29-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by AZPaul3
06-29-2010 12:01 PM


Re: Fag?
First he is a "fag", now he's a "douche."
He's acting like a douche about how I'm using the word fag.
Using Rrhain's reasoning here I'm having difficulty in determining exactly where you want to fuck him. I'm so confused.
If calling him a fag means I want to have sex with him, then calling him a douche means I'd like to wax his taint. I think...?
Btw, does anyone like fishdicks?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by AZPaul3, posted 06-29-2010 12:01 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by AZPaul3, posted 06-30-2010 1:25 AM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024