Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 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 181 of 269 (559303)
05-08-2010 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Rrhain
05-08-2010 5:30 AM


Christ dude, did you leave any thoughts out of this post? Here we go with the long posts again.....
All performance is a connection with the audience and if the response is that you've laid a turd, then that's what you've done no matter how much you may believe in your work.
The point is that no one "laid a turd," she simply didn't find it funny and was outraged. Again who cares what she considers funny on a radio show, change the channel and stop being the PC police.
At no time during his rant did he defend the actual joke.
It wasn't his joke to defend, it was Opie & Anthony's joke, and all he said was, they have the right to try and be as funny as they want to be. If it misses then it misses. All jokes have the potential to fail.
Look, I'm very sorry about his penis but until he can show why the joke isn't part of the problem, he's only showing that he's just as much of a sexist prick.
I don't even know what you mean by this, but it's the second dick reference you've made in this post so I'm assuming you have cock on your mind...so I'll just ignore this one.
The joke isn't part of what problem? It's a joke, that the O & A audience that pays for satellite radio didn't seem to be bothered by. Why is this PC cunt making an issue of it when all anyone has to do is change the station?
Which means he has nothing to do with the business of being funny. He wants to be able to spout any vile thought that crosses his mind without there being any consequences to what he's saying. That isn't comedy. That's sociopathy.
This isn't YOUR brand of comedy, Rrhain. Which is cool, no one is forcing you to listen to it. But I love watching Patrice, I've worked with him before, and guess what, women LOVE him too. Its humor done for an audience of adults who chose to watch, stop being a fag about it.
He has 2 HBO specials, he's been invited to the Montreal Comedy Festival numerous times, he has 2 Comedy Central Presents, many CD's...fuck, he was even a cast member in "The Office" a show I'm sure you love. Clearly someone appreciates what he does. Just not you, which again is cool, but no one gives a shit what you like.
There are no consequences in this case, what there is is bitchy, whinny, PC cops trying to make themselves relevant by grasping to anything anyone says and making an issue of it. That's not a consequence to what Patrice or O & A said, it's an annoyance.
I'm reminded of DeGeneres' bit about kidding:
After watching it, I'm reminded why she's not funny.
Instead, they got an antagonizer and the victim.
What?! What is she a victim of dude? She heard something, probably second hand because I'M SURE she's not listening to O & A on a regular basis, then SHE decide to make an issue of it.
She's NOT a victim. She's a person with no life who pretends to care about what the public should be listening to, but she has her own agenda and is clinging to anything she can to make a name for herself.
The audience. They're the final authority, after all.
And that's exactly the point. The audience of the O & A show will decide if they care to listen, not some PC cunt who heard about it second hand and decide she would make an issue of it.
There we go again with the idea that people should be free from consequences for their actions.
Words, penis lover, words. People are getting outraged over WORDS. Its weak and pathetic. Change the station and get on with your pathetic life.
Because I'm the audience. That's my job.
First, do you listen to O & A? If you don't, then you're not the audience. Second, have you ever watched Patrice do stand up? If you haven't, then you were never "the audience."
So your opinion doesn't matter. People, by the millions, listen to O & A, they are the audience and they seem to love listening to O & A. Equally so, Patrice sells out clubs and theaters, those people are the audience.
You are just someone who heard what he said and got offended, so fine, sorry your feelings go hurt but heres what you do, don't watch Patrice or listen to O & A. Problem solved.
But I like them, I also like Patrice. Who are you to tell me different?
You're probably into gay porn, which I personally don't care for. But I would never think of telling you you can't lube up and watch two men go at it. That's your choice. My choice is not to watch it. Everyone is happy.
And the fact that you don't understand that shows that you really don't understand what the job of a performer is. You have to take the audience into account. It's one of the big differences between recorded and live performances.
I do what I think is funny and genuine. If its funny, then the audience will be there to listen, if it is not funny, then no one will be there. That's how we/comics know what works. That's why we're at clubs every night.
Patrice and O & A have reached a massive level of success doing what they do, so apparently many people enjoy them. Who are you to tell them they can't enjoy it?
The most successful and funny comics have always been the ones that cross your PC lines.
And that you don't think they do shows you're not a comic.
You're a narcissist.
You should get to know a few stand up comics, we openly admit narcissism. We stand alone on that stage for a reason, Rrhain. We are elitist, hell even Carlin admited to being a narcissist. But it doesn't mean that what we say isn't funny. And if there is an audience of people that love to watch you perform, then no one elses opinion matters.
The right to free speech does not come with the right to an audience and it certainly doesn't come with a right to someone else's money for your soapbox. If their actions on their show cause a problem for the company, the company has every right to respond, including firing them.
Agreed. And since O & A's audience hasn't complained and tunes in by the millions, everyone else who doesn't listen to them should shut the fuck up about it.
You want the right to be a prick without facing the consequences of being one.
Get used to disappointment.
Yes, they want the right to be pricks, just like Howard Stern did. What disappointment should they expect when they have one of the highest rated shows on satellite? When Patrice has reached such a level of success in comedy, tv and as a writer?
I think the only disappointed one's here are the PC fags who won't EVER get their way because funny is funny and the market has spoken.
On the contrary: The audience has everything to do with it and will always interfere because that is the entire point behind performance:
To connect to the audience.
But again, she is NOT O & A's audience, she's just some idiot trying to make a name for herself by going after some one like O & A because they have so much recognition.
The audience of their show loves them, again, by the millions listen to them. If they are ok with it then that is the end of it. And those who don't like it can just not listen to it or watch performances by Patrice.
Its that simple, change the station and get on with your pathetic, uninteresting lives and leave comedy to the comedians. If they're not funny then they won't succeed.
But if they have had success, it's because many people find them funny. If you don't, fine, you have the right to choose not to listen. No one is forcing you to do anything. But don't tell others what they should and shouldn't find funny or listen to.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2010 5:30 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2010 11:59 PM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 182 of 269 (559306)
05-08-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Rrhain
05-08-2010 5:30 AM


All performance is a connection with the audience and if the response is that you've laid a turd, then that's what you've done no matter how much you may believe in your work.
I don't wanna piss on either yours or Onifre's fire at this point. I just wondered about this statement as applied to art in general.
Is there such a thing as being "ahead of ones time" and if so can this apply to performance art such as comedy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2010 5:30 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by onifre, posted 05-08-2010 1:53 PM Straggler has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 183 of 269 (559308)
05-08-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Rrhain
05-08-2010 5:30 AM


That he has such disrespect for the audience is indicative of him being a poor performer. At no time during his rant did he defend the actual joke. As I said, his only point was that being absolute about a topic being "not funny" is wrong. But at no point could he describe why this particular instance wasn't an example of the misogyny that it was being accused of. His only defense was, "It's a joke!" as if that makes a difference.
That's his prerogative though, and the audience will decide if his jokes are amusing or if they're misogynist. To each his own. Some people find it amusing and others find it derogatory.
Look, I'm very sorry about his penis but until he can show why the joke isn't part of the problem, he's only showing that he's just as much of a sexist prick.
Even if he was, he's the one that has to deal with it. He has the right to say it, you have the right to be offended by it, and we have the right to laugh at it. This ultimately boils down to a difference of opinion, so live and let live.
The line of legitimizing bigotry.
Then we have quite the dilemma as it sets a precedence of legitimizing censorship.
Because I'm the audience. That's my job. And the fact that you don't understand that shows that you really don't understand what the job of a performer is. You have to take the audience into account. It's one of the big differences between recorded and live performances.
We all are the audience. Your sole opinion doesn't encapsulate the entirety of "the audience." Whatever backlash the comic receives for a shitty skit will be on his/her head. They will have to come to the inescapable conclusion that the audience either does or does not find it amusing. But that is for him to decide based on their reactions, not up to some hysterical finger wagging woman.
And that you don't think they do shows you're not a comic.
Who made you the arbiter? That's your opinion, just like it's my opinion that you're a melodramatic theater hag.
You're a narcissist.
Says the narcissist.
The right to free speech does not come with the right to an audience and it certainly doesn't come with a right to someone else's money for your soapbox. If their actions on their show cause a problem for the company, the company has every right to respond, including firing them.
Yes, they do. But woe to those who sacrifice lambs on the alter of political correctness.
How dare the audience go to the sponsors to inform them of what she was saying! How dare the audience respond to what the performer says! How dare anybody point out that actions have consequences!
The audience is allowed to be offended, and the comic is allowed to tell what is a shitty stand-up bit to some and hilarious to others.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2010 5:30 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by cavediver, posted 05-08-2010 2:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2010 12:24 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

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


Message 184 of 269 (559310)
05-08-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Straggler
05-08-2010 1:21 PM


Is there such a thing as being "ahead of ones time" and if so can this apply to performance art such as comedy?
I never really got that expression. I think the only thing that can be said is, the language used was ahead of what society allowed in a open/public forum. Lenny Bruce wasn't arrested for not being funny, audiences LOVED him. He was arrested for the language he used. Many people say Bruce was "ahead of his time," but I don't think that makes sense. I'm sure many people said and thought what he said, just not in a public forum.
Lets take the joke the lady in the video objected to. The one Patrice did at his show, not the O & A joke. She went to see his performance, of course just to criticise it, and she (not surprisingly) found it unfunny, offensive and misogynistic. So, ok, that's how she subjectively perceived it, she's more than welcome to see it that way. But no one got arrested for it. Bruce did jokes with the same language back then but he did get arrested though.
All that has changed, it seems, is societies ability to deal with certain words, and I think that's what we "call" being ahead of ones time.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2010 1:21 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2010 2:03 PM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 185 of 269 (559312)
05-08-2010 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by onifre
05-08-2010 1:53 PM


Ahead Of Ones time
All that has changed, it seems, is societies ability to deal with certain words, and I think that's what we "call" being ahead of ones time.
The phrase is most often used in relation to art of the painting, making kind. Is it used differently as applied to the performance arts? Is an audience not an audience not an audiance?
I really don't wanna drag this thread down the "what is art" rabbit hole. I just thought it was worth pointing out that popular appeal or even critical appeal at any given point in time is not necessarily indicative of "worth" when it comes to art in all it's various formats in the long run.
Or something like that.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by onifre, posted 05-08-2010 1:53 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by onifre, posted 05-08-2010 2:33 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 186 of 269 (559321)
05-08-2010 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Straggler
05-08-2010 2:03 PM


Re: Ahead Of Ones time
The phrase is most often used in relation to art of the painting, making kind.
I have zero ability to judge art in the classical sense. I can tell you if something "looks cool," but that's about it. I've heard the expression used to describe art though, by artsy fartsy people.
Is it used differently as applied to the performance arts?
I can only speak for stand up. Rrhain, if I'm not mistaken, does theater. I'm not sure how it applies in that forum.
In stand up, it seems to only apply to the language and material being used, and not so much the comic being revolutionary or anything like that.
(Exeptions, maybe, being Richard Pryor and Lenny Bruce, since they changed the way stand up was/is performed. After Bruce there was a lot of cynical comics and social satirist, after Pryor you got comics getting personal and dirty with their material.)
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2010 2:03 PM Straggler has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 187 of 269 (559326)
05-08-2010 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Hyroglyphx
05-08-2010 1:33 PM


Rrhain writes:
You're a narcissist.
Hyro writes:
Says the narcissist.
Yes, I've already ordered my new irony meter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-08-2010 1:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 188 of 269 (559490)
05-09-2010 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by onifre
05-08-2010 12:17 PM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
Christ dude, did you leave any thoughts out of this post? Here we go with the long posts again.....
Which only goes to prove my point: You want to be able to spout any vile thought that crosses your mind without there being any consequences to what you're saying. If you didn't want people to respond, perhaps you should have kept your thoughts to yourself. Nobody is forcing you to reply.
quote:
The point is that no one "laid a turd,"
The fact that there was a segment on a television show that discussed it proves that point wrong.
quote:
Again who cares what she considers funny on a radio show, change the channel and stop being the PC police.
Ah, yes...the common refrain of the bigot: Deny any responsibility and try to shift the attention to the person pointing out the problem. How dare someone actually pay attention. How dare someone respond to speech with more speech. It's all find and dandy when you pick on others but heaven help us if they have the temerity to return the favor.
quote:
It wasn't his joke to defend
Then what was he doing on a television show defending it? So now we've gone from you saying that he's perfectly free to find it funny to you saying it isn't for him to say why. Can we backpedal some more?
Let me give you an example: Dana Stevens is a movie critic for Slate. Her review of My Super Ex-Girlfriend pretty much panned it as a piece of misogynistic trash. How dare a movie portray a woman as petty, jealous, and nuts! I pointed out that she was completely missing the point: It was making fun of the trope of the perpetually self-sacrificing superhero, not women. While superheroes in the comics are often damaged people, they all understand the "greater good" concept. No matter how bad their personal lives get, they still sacrifice it in order to save the world. "With great power comes great responsibility," and all that.
Well, what if the super powers landed on someone who didn't have that schtick? What if they were bestowed upon someone who was petty and jealous and too self-absorbed to handle it? What if the only person who could save the world was too pissed off at an intimate friend that saving the world just isn't on the radar?
And this is where sexual politics does have its role. If it were a male superhero going nutso on his girlfriend, well, we call those men "stalkers" and it isn't funny. Given the sociological climate in which we live, a male who, say, uses his X-ray vision to spy on his girlfriend is just a half step away from making the audience think he's going to rape her and that simply isn't funny. They tried it in Superman Returns and they managed to stop it right at the line where it was turning creepy.
So in order to make it funny, the super has to be a woman and the guy has to be nebbish.
See how easy that is? You just go through the material, point out the context, connect to the social climate in which the material is being performed, and show how the analysis by the reviewer was very much off base. She couldn't get past the image of a super-ditz being female to see the underlying trope being subverted.
I don't have to be the author or the performer to get that. I just have to pay attention and treat the subject matter seriously rather than getting defensive.
quote:
and all he said was, they have the right to try and be as funny as they want to be.
And if that was all he said, then you might have a point. The thing is, he kept talking, denigrating the other person. That he couldn't keep to that point means that wasn't the point he was trying to make.
quote:
If it misses then it misses. All jokes have the potential to fail.
At which point the response is, "Oops. I'm sorry," not, "You stupid bitch. Can't you take a joke?"
quote:
I don't even know what you mean by this
(*chuckle*)
Here we go again with the armchair psycho-analysis. In a moment, you're going to insinuate that I'm gay, aren't you:
quote:
but it's the second dick reference you've made in this post so I'm assuming you have cock on your mind
Bingo!
You seem to care an awful lot about my sex-life, onifre. Are you trying to ask me out? I've told you multiple times that I'm not going to sleep with you, so please stop asking.
quote:
The joke isn't part of what problem?
Let's not play dumb. The problem of misogyny. The problem of sexism. The problem of the denigration of women. Again, I'm hardly saying that certain subjects can never be funny, but you have to explain why it is funny and not disparaging.
quote:
Why is this PC cunt making an issue of it when all anyone has to do is change the station?
Because actions have consequences. You get enough people saying something and you wind up with people introducing legislation to revoke the citizenship of natural-born Americans for the mere suspicion of being "terrorists." Yeah, you changed the station, but you aren't the end-all/be-all of society.
quote:
stop being a fag about it.
Stop shoving your ass on my cock and I will. Why is it you are so intent upon knowing where my sperm goes? C'mon, onifre, just come out and say it. You'll feel so much better when you come out of the closet and stop hiding your true feelings. Every time you try to deflect it by calling other people "fag," you only show just how deep your self-hatred goes.
quote:
but no one gives a shit what you like.
Clearly, you do or you wouldn't be so quick to respond. No matter how much you try to have it both ways, it won't work: If you truly don't care, then don't respond.
Of course, given your obsession with my penis, I'm not surprised.
quote:
There are no consequences in this case
Huh? You mean the way women are treated in this world is not connected to our sense of humor surrounding women? That trivializing rape is of no concern?
See, you have to start analyzing the joke. You have to start explaining how it wasn't that in order for your argument to have any merit. And if you're not going to do so, if you're going to run away with whines of, "But it isn't my joke to defend!" then you don't have anything to say at all. You're just trying to legitimize the position that you should be free from the consequences of your actions.
If you don't want people to respond, then you shouldn't open your yap.
quote:
After watching it, I'm reminded why she's not funny.
She's got a better gig than you.
Oh, but I forget: The audience doesn't mean shit. I get it, I get it...you don't like her. But surely someone who understands comedy like you do can understand why she has an audience. One doesn't have to like something in order to understand it.
Of course, that would require you responding with something other than a conniption fit that someone dared to contradict you and provide details to back it up.
quote:
What is she a victim of dude?
Misogyny. Sexism. Are you seriously saying that actions don't have far-reaching effects? That unless something happens immediately upon the completion of an act, it doesn't actually have any effect? You seriously think that the way we joke about women doesn't have any effect in how we treat women?
quote:
She's a person with no life
Right...and you know this because of what, precisely? Oh, that's right. Because she won't sleep with you. Clearly the problem is her. Once again, we see the human tendency to take things as all-or-nothing. If someone antagonizes you one way, then they must be utterly with no redeeming qualities at all.
quote:
who pretends to care about what the public should be listening to
Right, that's why she's talking about it. She's in it for the money. Because we all know how much money there is in being called a "cunt."
quote:
she has her own agenda and is clinging to anything she can to make a name for herself.
When cavediver's irony meter explodes upon contact with him, you might want to buy one for yourself to see if you can outdo the crater left behind.
You still haven't defended the joke. And since I started my piece by making note of Patrice's point that everything has the potential to be funny, the only thing left to do is to explain how this particular piece was actually funny rather than degrading. That nobody seems to be able to do so is a pretty strong indicator that it wasn't a work of comedy but was an act of cruelty.
quote:
The audience of the O & A show will decide if they care to listen, not some PC cunt who heard about it second hand and decide she would make an issue of it.
I thought you were a comedian, not a psychic. When you read other people's minds, do you have to concentrate to turn it on or is it a constant stream of background voices that you have to work to isolate the one you are paying attention to? Do you need to have an object the person has touched or can you pull it out of the air?
You know for a fact that she didn't hear it herself? She certainly didn't say so in the interview. After all, she quoted Patrice's routine back to him and he denied that was his joke.
quote:
Words, penis lover, words.
Dude, if you relax, open your throat, and swallow, you'll be able to get it all the way down. Now, make sure you get enough of your spit on it because otherwise it's gonna hurt when when coin flips to tails and he gives you what you're begging for.
Even Patrice agreed with her point. At 5:12 in the clip:
You can say anything you want. It might not be funny. You might get in trouble for it.
So if he agrees that there are consequences to actions, what on earth is he complaining about? If he knows that a comedian "might get in trouble" for a joke that was made, why the complaint when a comedian actually got in trouble?
Oh, that's right...he wants to be able to pretend that he understands that actions have consequences, but he doesn't want to have to live up to that principle. He's a pussy. He doesn't have the courage of his convictions.
quote:
First, do you listen to O & A?
How does your point depend upon my answer? Do you have an actual argument of substance or is it only going to devolve to ad hominem commentary?
quote:
You're probably into gay porn
Once again, you seem to be obsessed with my cock. Look, you're never going to get it. The sooner you realize that there are plenty of men who will be willing to give you what you need, the sooner you'll be happier with yourself.
Look, I understand what you're trying to do. You think that by goading me often enough, I'll take pity on you and treat you like the submissive piece of shit you have objectified yourself as. Now, there are plenty of dominants who will do that for you. You might even be able to find one who will respond to your attempts. But there's a difference between being a "pushy bottom" and a pathetic asshole. The ones who will snap and respond the way you want them to will not have your interests at heart and you'll only get hurt. A good dominant knows that even when a bottom says he has no limits, there are always limits and will not cross them no matter how much the bottom begs.
A good top will never break his toys, though they may need some maintenance when he's through.
So no, onifre, I'm not going to sleep with you. First, get your headspace adjusted so that you have come to terms with the reality of your need to be humiliated.
But even then, I'm not going to sleep with you.
quote:
But I would never think of telling you you can't lube up and watch two men go at it. That's your choice. My choice is not to watch it. Everyone is happy.
Right, because people who want to have sex having sex is exactly the same as rape.
quote:
I do what I think is funny and genuine.
But it won't be funny if it's only genuine to you. Otherwise, you become not a comedian but a performance artist where the point certainly makes sense to you but is incomprehensible to others. If you cannot connect to the audience, then all you're doing is vocalizing your internal monologue.
Which isn't funny.
quote:
If its funny, then the audience will be there to listen, if it is not funny, then no one will be there.
But apparently, you're upset that someone might manage to point out that they don't want to be there.
As you said, nobody was arrested, nobody was put in jail, no fines. Your right to speech does not come with the right to an audience and it certainly doesn't come with a right to someone else's nickel to promote it. As employees of Sirius/XM, they are subject to the opinions of management and if management finds that O&A cause a problem for the bottom line, then they'll quickly find themselves looking for another promoter.
Or do you think that when a comedian "gets in trouble," there shouldn't be any consequences?
quote:
Who are you to tell them they can't enjoy it?
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Do you really think that the way we joke about women has no connection to how we treat women?
quote:
You should get to know a few stand up comics, we openly admit narcissism.
Thus proving that you missed the point completely. In case you have forgotten, I am a performer, too. I understand all too well the amount of personal self-worth you have to have to be able to stand in front of someone else and perform.
But that isn't narcissism. There is a difference between accepting the fact that you can't please everybody and going out there anyway and understanding that their opinion does, indeed, matter. You have to figure out why they have the opinion that they have. That doesn't necessarily mean you change anything in your performance. But their reaction informs your performance and allows you to understand what you're doing that much better.
A few years ago, I was doing The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged). That's where the avatar comes from: The "What a piece of work is man?" speech from Hamlet. The local theatre consortium had sent their judges to attend so that they could make up the local awards list. Afterwards, I got to see their responses (being good friends with the director) and one of them had said that they didn't appreciate all of the ad libbing. We should have just stuck to the script.
As I am so fond of saying, (*blink!*) You did not just say that did you? Um, we were following the script. All that stuff that we did? That was in the script.
So, in this case, the person didn't like it, but I can understand why: The show is done as if it were improvisational. That this person thought we were making a lot of it up as we went along only shows how well we were doing in our performance. The show had closed but if we knew about this during the run, we wouldn't have changed a thing. That presentation was precisely what we were going for.
This compared to another judge who had some comments about timing and topical references. Those make more sense. Not everybody will get the Star Wars references and that is something to consider: Who is going to come to see the show and perhaps we should rethink what we're doing so that it's more accessible.
That isn't narcissism. That's paying attention and understanding that sometimes, people's responses are wrong.
But you have to have a reason that they're wrong. "But it's a joke!" isn't a reason.
quote:
everyone else who doesn't listen to them should shut the fuck up about it.
Who are you to tell them to shut up? When your actions affect their lives, they should simply suck it up? Oh, that's right, you don't want to have any consequences to your actions. Oh, you say you do but when it finally comes around to you being the one who's getting blowback (or in this case, someone you identify with), you're suddenly screaming bloody murder.
If you "get in trouble," as Patrice said, shouldn't there be some sort of consequence?
quote:
I think the only disappointed one's here are the PC fags
Dude, just got to rentboy.com and get yourself a hooker, for crying out loud. The more you protest about it, the more desperate you sound.
Hell, I'm sure you can do what Rekers did and convince yourself that it isn't really sex to have your hands on another man's dick, but it's the first step to realizing what you're secretly craving.
quote:
But don't tell others what they should and shouldn't find funny or listen to.
Oh, I see...you should be able to say anything you want.
But nobody else should be able to say anything they want. After all, it might shut you down and we can't have that. If you truly didn't care about what she thought, if you truly had the courage of your convictions, you wouldn't be doing everything you could to besmirch this woman. Instead, you'd say, "Eh...she's entitled to her opinion. If she's right, people will listen to her. If not, her comments won't get any traction."
The fact that you decided to throw a tantrum and lash out in every way you possibly could in a childish attempt to get a rise out of people so that you could have some company in your outburst only shows that you don't really believe your own hype.
Can you actually respond without taking it so personally?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by onifre, posted 05-08-2010 12:17 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Modulous, posted 05-10-2010 11:21 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 192 by onifre, posted 05-10-2010 2:21 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 189 of 269 (559495)
05-10-2010 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Hyroglyphx
05-08-2010 1:33 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:
quote:
Some people find it amusing and others find it derogatory.
I see...you've fallen for the deconstructionist, post-modern claptrap that all interpretations are valid.
Well, no. Some interpretations are full of shit. And you need to be able to analyze the actual substance in order to weed out the odd-yet-still-justified from the bloody stupid.
I suppose if everybody's a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot, that makes it OK, right?
quote:
This ultimately boils down to a difference of opinion, so live and let live.
Opinion about what? So far, nobody who has come to the defense of O&A has bothered to defend the actual joke. They're simply crying that somebody didn't find it funny and decided to say so out loud.
Strange...their defense is that they have freedom of speech and their response is that the other person needs to shut up.
They're wusses who can't take the heat.
quote:
Then we have quite the dilemma as it sets a precedence of legitimizing censorship.
What "censorship"? Nobody's throwing them in jail. Nobody's been arrested. No fines. Your right to speak your mind does not mean you don't get to face the blowback. You do not have a right to an audience and you do not have the right to somebody else's money to promote yourself.
The fact that nobody can explain how the joke isn't what it's being accused of is pretty damning evidence that it is precisely that.
quote:
Your sole opinion doesn't encapsulate the entirety of "the audience."
I never said it was. But onifre is complaining that somebody decided to respond to speech with more speech. He then whines that this is somehow abridging his freedom of speech, telling the other person to be quiet.
You will note, I haven't said what my opinion is about the joke. All I've said is that Patrice and onifre are cowards. Give them the tiniest amount of pushback and they start pissing their pants.
quote:
Whatever backlash the comic receives for a shitty skit will be on his/her head.
Indeed, but Patrice and onifre have both said that there shouldn't be any backlash. You've come along and said that this backlash somehow will lead to "censorship" as if anybody was threatened with any sort of legal response.
Someone told a joke and someone else said, "That's not funny." Somehow, this is a threat? Oh, I get it: It's OK for a comedian to try and convince other people that a particular joke is funny, but it isn't OK for someone else to convince other people that it isn't.
Free speech for everybody except those who disagree with you. I get it.
quote:
But that is for him to decide based on their reactions, not up to some hysterical finger wagging woman.
Ah, here we have it. It can't possibly be that she has any evidence to back it up. It has to be because she's "hysterical." Never mind the fact that she was perfectly calm through the entire interview while Patrice was the one having an anyeurism.
And you show yourself to be part of the problem. You want to be able to say any vile thought that goes through your head without there being any consequences for your actions.
O&A get to convince other people that they're funny but she isn't allowed to convince other people that they're not. Free speech for everybody except those who disagree with you.
What are you so scared of? If your material really is that good, it will survive.
quote:
Who made you the arbiter?
My status as an artist. And as the audience, that's my job.
quote:
That's your opinion, just like it's my opinion that you're a melodramatic theater hag.
Same advice: Just go find yourself an escort and get that deep dicking you've been craving ever since you discovered the funny feeling you get when you touch your pee-pee. Be sure to clean out first, though.
Is there a reason that you're obsessed with my dick? What are you trying to tell us?
quote:
Says the narcissist.
(*chuckle*)
Yeah, right. I'm the one asking for us to analyze the particular joke in question to see if there is anything legitimate in the claim being made against it, and I'm the one who's taking it personally, not the ones wallowing in their diarrhea from having someone contradict them.
If that's what you need to believe, then you keep right at it.
Interesting that you keep responding to me, though.
quote:
But woe to those who sacrifice lambs on the alter of political correctness.
Read, "I don't actually have an argument, so I'll toss around a moronic epithet in hopes that it will derail the thread and throw the other side off point."
Do you have an explanation as to why this joke wasn't misogynistic? Do you have any argument at all that isn't based upon jingoistic sloganeering substituting for thought?
quote:
The audience is allowed to be offended, and the comic is allowed to tell what is a shitty stand-up bit to some and hilarious to others.
And the audience is allowed to look at the owner of the stage and ask, "You want this fool on your stage?"
And the owner of the stage is allowed to say, "Get off my stage."
Your right to speak your mind doesn't come with a right to use somebody else's soapbox.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-08-2010 1:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-10-2010 9:32 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 269 (559558)
05-10-2010 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Rrhain
05-10-2010 12:24 AM


I suppose if everybody's a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot, that makes it OK, right?
One would have to ask if that comedian actually ascribes to it in real life. Comedy is not real life. Satire is just that.... Satirical. That would be like saying there should be some moral imperative about violence attached to the Three Stooges. Were the Stooges endorsing violence or is it just comedy?
If you recognize that kind of comedy, then why the double standard?
Opinion about what? So far, nobody who has come to the defense of O&A has bothered to defend the actual joke.
I'm not defending the joke, I'm defending a person's right to say it.
Strange...their defense is that they have freedom of speech and their response is that the other person needs to shut up.
I'm protesting the woman who wants to muzzle people. She has every right to say what she wants, but has no right to stop people from saying what they want to say just because it offends her delicate sensibilities. People like that are too weak to live with freedom.
What "censorship"?
The whole point of that clip was stopping people from saying what they want. THAT censorship...
Free speech for everybody except those who disagree with you. I get it.
I said it before and I'll say it again, protesting is fine. My point is that this ultimately comes down to mere opinion, right? So why are you speaking for everybody?
You want to be able to say any vile thought that goes through your head without there being any consequences for your actions.
I said that people should be allowed the choice to say whatever they want and that they have to deal with the consequences. Why don't you back up and read it again.
My status as an artist.
What status might that be? Because your tone sounds egotistical. I'd LOVE to see your work. Why don't you post some of it in here so we can see your legendary status.
Same advice: Just go find yourself an escort and get that deep dicking you've been craving ever since you discovered the funny feeling you get when you touch your pee-pee. Be sure to clean out first, though.
Is there a reason that you're obsessed with my dick? What are you trying to tell us?
Um, I never once mentioned your dick, whatsoever. Please show me where I did. From where I'm sitting you're the one who seems obsessed with that deep dicking. Color me not suprised. Re-living old fantasies with daddy during shower time, I see. Aye, que lindo!
Read, "I don't actually have an argument, so I'll toss around a moronic epithet in hopes that it will derail the thread and throw the other side off point."
The entirety of damn near everything you say is a slew of moronic epithets. You've managed to burn every bridge you've walked across because you're perpetually pissed off at everything anyone ever says.
Do you have an explanation as to why this joke wasn't misogynistic? Do you have any argument at all that isn't based upon jingoistic sloganeering substituting for thought?
I agree, it is misogynistic. The only real question then is whether the person telling the jokes actually ascribes to misogyny or whether they weren't just, you know, telling a fucking joke! You do understand the difference between comedy and real life, don't you?
And even then a person has the right to be misogynistic pricks if they want to. They'll just have to suffer the consequences. So let them. That's my point.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2010 12:24 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 05-14-2010 4:56 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 191 of 269 (559569)
05-10-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Rrhain
05-09-2010 11:59 PM


Christ dude, did you leave any thoughts out of this post? Here we go with the long posts again.....
Which only goes to prove my point: You want to be able to spout any vile thought that crosses your mind without there being any consequences to what you're saying.
You concluded that from him commenting in a light hearted fashion that your post was rather long? Your powers of interpretation are superhuman.
The point is that no one "laid a turd,"
The fact that there was a segment on a television show that discussed it proves that point wrong.
I'd be keen to see this proof. How does a group of people talking about something, some of who may have disliked the skit, prove that someone 'laid a turd'. I have a feeling it all comes down to what is meant by 'laying a turd'.
quote:Again who cares what she considers funny on a radio show, change the channel and stop being the PC police.
Ah, yes...the common refrain of the bigot: Deny any responsibility and try to shift the attention to the person pointing out the problem. How dare someone actually pay attention. How dare someone respond to speech with more speech.
But that's all onifre is doing! He's responding to her speech with more speech - by pointing out her concerns can be ameliorated while the concerns of those that enjoy the performers are likewise taken into account...merely through a minor act of will on her behalf. Why the smear?
I don't have to be the author or the performer to get that. I just have to pay attention and treat the subject matter seriously rather than getting defensive.
I haven't heard the routine, but from what I can tell it draws upon the alarming juxtoposition between a very poor man (poor in finances and morality) and rich powerful women. It has an uneducated man propounding about the fact that someone seem to have loveless lives and, I quote, "She needs a fukin' man".
This "Homeless Charlie" needs to be played by a man because...the comedian is a man. The humour seems to derive from his sense of sexual entitlement and the misogyny that stems from the improbable union described.
They then say "Fuck the queen" (not as in 'have sex with the queen', but in the Sex Pistols kind of fashion).
I've no idea if it was delivered well but I've seen some hilarious "Have rough/violent sex with inappropriate/taboo/socially aloof/'frigid' type routines."
It could have been done with women comedians commenting about how Gordon Brown needs a 'fuckin' blow job' and a 'good fisting'.
And for additional punch this is followed by a commentary on the freedom to say what one likes in America.
If it misses then it misses. All jokes have the potential to fail.
At which point the response is, "Oops. I'm sorry," not, "You stupid bitch. Can't you take a joke?"
Something like this?
quote:
We apologize to the public officials for comments that were made on our XM show on May 9. We take very seriously the responsibility that comes with our creative freedom and regret any offense that this segment has caused.
Why is this PC cunt making an issue of it when all anyone has to do is change the station?
Because actions have consequences. You get enough people saying something and you wind up with people introducing legislation to revoke the citizenship of natural-born Americans for the mere suspicion of being "terrorists." Yeah, you changed the station, but you aren't the end-all/be-all of society.
I appreciate that actions have consequences. What are the consequences you think might follow from this? That enough people will get together and introduce legislation to make mandatory violent sex against Ms. Rice a citizen's duty?
The only consequences I can see here are people might say 'Oh that wasn't very nice, what a horrid thing to say. Now I'm in a bad mood.' and the solution to that is rather simple.
Let's not play dumb. The problem of misogyny. The problem of sexism. The problem of the denigration of women. Again, I'm hardly saying that certain subjects can never be funny, but you have to explain why it is funny and not disparaging.
You make it sound like 'funny' and 'disparaging' are always mutually exclusive.
Saying the words 'Press the flesh' isn't funny or disparaging. It is a funky way of saying 'get out there and shake some hands', advice sometimes given to politicians.
However, when the context is the Queen, and she's naked with her legs apart and someone makes a speculum shaped hand gesture with a certain intonation to 'Press the flesh' with a possible second rhyming phrase of "Her Maj's Vag"...that has the potential to be both disparaging and funny.
And what about satire?
Stop shoving your ass on my cock and I will.
I find your casual homophobia offensive. Time and again you project some kind of homosexual intent on your debate opponents as if it were some kind of retort to suggest they might be gay for you.
Oh, I'm sure you'll reply about how you were just having fun, just bantering with someone who can 'take it', it's just a game of wits. Yeah yeah i's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Do you really think that the way we joke about homosexuality has no connection to how we treat homosexuals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2010 11:59 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Rrhain, posted 05-14-2010 7:50 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 192 of 269 (559598)
05-10-2010 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Rrhain
05-09-2010 11:59 PM


Can you actually respond without taking it so personally?
Well when you stop being condescending in your replies then I'll adjust the way I respond.
In any case, I'll just repond here to your points and ignore the other rethoric, and we'll see where that goes...
Oni writes:
It wasn't his joke to defend
Rrhain writes:
Then what was he doing on a television show defending it?
If you listen to the beginning of the video, it explains it. He was there representing comedy and comedians and jokes in general, not to defend himself or a joke he said. He was there to give his opinion on what Opie and Anthony said on their show.
Opie and Anthony
quote:
On May 15, 2007, XM suspended Opie & Anthony for 30 days, in response to a broadcast featuring a homeless and deranged man who had wandered into the studio. Opie and Anthony dubbed the man "Homeless Charlie" and among the topics he discussed was the possibility of raping Condoleezza Rice and Laura Bush.
And if that was all he said, then you might have a point. The thing is, he kept talking, denigrating the other person. That he couldn't keep to that point means that wasn't the point he was trying to make.
His only point was that O&A were free to try and be as funny as they wanted, because he was only there to speak on behalf of comedy. When she instigated him by bringing up his performance that she once saw (even though that had nothing to do with why either of them was on the show) yes, he got defensive. Because, while she may not have found it funny (his performance that she once saw) it doesn't mean it's not funny.
He even did the joke in the video and the camera men started laughing, which is when he told them (mockingly) "Don't laugh, it's not funny and she's offended."
His joke was: "The Angry Pirate: Its when you cum in a woman's eye and you kick her in the shin, and she hops around holding one eye yelling, Argh..." --- Which is fucking hilarious! And ALWAYS gets a huge laugh from a mixed-sex crowd.
Now, is he incouraging people to go out and do it? No! Anyone taking that from the bit doesn't need to be in a comedy club. It's just a joke, people seem to like it, so he continues to perform it.
That was his joke that she didn't like, BUT, it was not what he was on the show to discuss.
At which point the response is, "Oops. I'm sorry," not, "You stupid bitch. Can't you take a joke?"
He wasn't there to apologize, he was there to discuss the O&A issue. And he never spoke to her like that. Now you're just making shit up.
He is an aggressive person who speaks in the manner that he does. But he was invited to be there with full knowledge of how he acts. It would be like bringing Andrew Dice Clay and asking him to be polite. Fuck you, he's not polite. Don't have him on the show if you don't want him to speak freely then. You get what you ask for.
Let's not play dumb. The problem of misogyny. The problem of sexism. The problem of the denigration of women. Again, I'm hardly saying that certain subjects can never be funny, but you have to explain why it is funny and not disparaging.
No, HE doesn't have to explain why other people find it funny, that's up to other people to explain. A comic does the joke, if it fails then he/she doesn't do it anymore. If it doesn't fail and people enjoy it (for whatever reason that they enjoy it) then he continues to do it. Period.
Because actions have consequences. You get enough people saying something and you wind up with people introducing legislation to revoke the citizenship of natural-born Americans for the mere suspicion of being "terrorists." Yeah, you changed the station, but you aren't the end-all/be-all of society.
First, if you paid attention and knew what they were discussing, you'd know that this was about O&A and their bit, not Patrice's act. Which, btw, O&A were fired from XM for.
And later brought back...for millions of dollars...and they're still on the air. Cause people like them.
Huh? You mean the way women are treated in this world is not connected to our sense of humor surrounding women? That trivializing rape is of no concern?
See, you have to start analyzing the joke. You have to start explaining how it wasn't that in order for your argument to have any merit. And if you're not going to do so, if you're going to run away with whines of, "But it isn't my joke to defend!" then you don't have anything to say at all. You're just trying to legitimize the position that you should be free from the consequences of your actions.
If you don't want people to respond, then you shouldn't open your yap.
Patrice, nor I, are trying to defend O&A's joke. If the audience didn't like it they can demand whatever they want. Have them fired, which DID happen. The AUDIENCE spoke, not some random, self-appointed judge of comedy.
What I AM defending is their right to tell the joke. People take jokes too serious, like with Imus. So he said something racist, who hasn't? Its when people make a big deal about it and pretend they've never done it (like with all the anti-gay people who end up being gay) that it becomes a bullshit witch hunt.
If its funny then its funny. Racism is hilarious. Bigotry is hilarious. If it wasn't then All in the Family and The Jeffersons would not have been able to broadcast.
Oh, but I forget: The audience doesn't mean shit. I get it, I get it...you don't like her. But surely someone who understands comedy like you do can understand why she has an audience. One doesn't have to like something in order to understand it.
Absolutely, I get it. Like I said, Carrot Top has a huge following. He sells out his weekly Vegas shows, 5000+ every week. But I don't think he's funny. Same with Larry the Cable Guy, HUGE following, but I don't find him funny.
But yes, the all currently have a better gig than me.
You still haven't defended the joke. And since I started my piece by making note of Patrice's point that everything has the potential to be funny, the only thing left to do is to explain how this particular piece was actually funny rather than degrading. That nobody seems to be able to do so is a pretty strong indicator that it wasn't a work of comedy but was an act of cruelty.
He wasn't there to defend O&A's joke. He was there to make the point that everything has the potential to be funny. Which is when the interviewer ask him "Even rape?" and Patrice said, "Yes, even rape can be funny." And just to defend his position, I agree. I've heard some funny rape jokes, the funniest being told by Sarah Silverman.
"When I was young I was raped by my family doctor. Which, for a jewish girl... is rather bitter-sweet."
You know for a fact that she didn't hear it herself? She certainly didn't say so in the interview. After all, she quoted Patrice's routine back to him and he denied that was his joke.
She didn't hear the O&A bit for herself, she got it second hand as did most everyone else who doesn't listen to their show.
The Patrice joke, yes, she did hear that one, but that's not the one I'm talking about.
But it won't be funny if it's only genuine to you. Otherwise, you become not a comedian but a performance artist where the point certainly makes sense to you but is incomprehensible to others. If you cannot connect to the audience, then all you're doing is vocalizing your internal monologue.
Sure, I agree, in the end the audience will decide.
Or do you think that when a comedian "gets in trouble," there shouldn't be any consequences?
No I don't. I don't think a joke should be taken so serious. People are overly sensitive these days and feel the need to be PC about everything.
The consequences come, not because the joke wasn't funny, but because advertisers don't want to lose money. Its not about whats right, its about money. And to me, that makes the punishment meaningless if your only reason for punishing is because it hurt your pocket.
There is no sencerity at that point, just a bunch of corporate douchebags who don't want to lose their summer homes.
That's why Patrice said, and I agree 100%, there is no passion in their argument, its all a bunch of corporate dicks trying to save their wallets.
A comic, on the other hand, is performing out of pure passion. He may fuck up and tell a joke that was too far into a senstive topic. Ok. His/her bad. But to hurt this person with fines, or fire them and try to ruin their career over it, just because some corporate sponser asked you too, is pathetic. I know it happens, but its still pathetic when it does. Because it solves NOTHING.
There is a difference between accepting the fact that you can't please everybody and going out there anyway and understanding that their opinion does, indeed, matter. You have to figure out why they have the opinion that they have. That doesn't necessarily mean you change anything in your performance. But their reaction informs your performance and allows you to understand what you're doing that much better.
I have not argued different. I have said repeatedly, the audience will tell you whats funny and what isn't funny. It is then up to the comic to change it. But many don't change anything, and continue the way they want to go. Some even achieve success like this, Andy Kaufman comes to mind.
There is no set way on how to do it. If it seems funny to me, and genuine to my character, I'll do it. If it's not funny then I'll either tweek it or abandon it...just as most other comics do. O&A never did that bit again. End of story. It didn't work and they shit canned it.
Ok, I think that addresses everything that wasn't personal... your move.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2010 11:59 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Rrhain, posted 05-21-2010 4:02 AM onifre has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 193 of 269 (559609)
05-10-2010 4:32 PM


Another conclusion?
Nothing spoils a romance so much as sense of humour in the woman
or the want of it in the man - Oscar Wilde
It appears this thread's participants highlighted accurate guesses that had previously been researched. Collectively I'd say, our opinions were mostly on course (see below). Thanks for all who submitted their two cents.
Using Scholar.Google I found 128,000 studies on "humour and gender". I read/skimmed a few dozen and found this one most related to my thread. However, there probably are too many other studies that may be more accurate to my thread or are much more fresher for me to seriously claim the one below is the final word on the subject. I've highlighted a few interesting passages below:
Gender and Humour: Beyond a Joke
J Hay
Some stereotypes/untested thoughts:
Maltz and Borker Tannen claim that men and women use language differently because they are socialised into different cultures. From childhood, boys and girls play in different groups and in different ways. Girls play emphasises solidarity and teaches them to use language to create and maintain friendships to criticise others in acceptable ways and to interpret accurately the speech of other girls. The groups boys play in however are hierarchical and competitive. Through this play, boys learn to assert a position of dominance attract and maintain an audience and assert oneself when other speakers have the floor. It is clear that the culture into which women are socialised is very much solidarity based, whereas there is an emphasis in mens culture on things which reinforce power and status.
Grotjahn suggested that women do not tell jokes because joke telling is an aggressive act.
Kramarae (1987) believes, . . . In short, women have to understand male
humour, men do not have to understand women's.
Women are said to have a sense of humour, not if they produce humour, but if
they respond to and appreciate it. Coser, McGhee, Barreca
Coser Goodman
Women just do not attempt to be humorous in a mixed group set
ting and the reason seems to be that women are neither expected
nor trained to joke in this culture . . . attempting a witty remark is . . . an
aggressive act (Pollio and Edgerly 1976)
The woman of today had better not show her wit too obviously if
she is young and intelligent for she will scare the contemporary male
who is easily frightened in his masculinity (Grotjahn 1957)
Some Findings:
Kottho (1986) . . . three very interesting hypotheses:
1. Men more often than women joke at the cost of others
2. Women joke about themselves and their experiences For them joking is a
means of establishing common ground and intimacy
3. Women actively encourage the success of the speaker by providing support
through laughter. Men do this less frequently especially when the speaker
is a woman
Dreher (1982)
studied four conversations and found that women laughed more than men and
that both men and women laughed more at men than at women.
Mitchell (1985)
Men told a higher percentage of openly aggressive jokes than women and
seemed to enjoy competitive joke telling sessions. Women rarely participated in
these sessions.
Jenkins (1985) observes that men's humour is characterised as
self aggrandizing one upmanship. They more often use formulaic jokes which are
markedly separate from the surrounding discourse and which involve a performance. This establishes them as credible performers and gives them an audience.
Conclusion
Women emphasise interaction, solidarity and community. Whereas men emphasise status and competition. Men seem to use more formulaic jokes and use performance based to claim an audience and gain status. Womens humour is more context dependent, involves their audience, and is more supportive and personal.
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:rZ40U0x90BwJ:schola...

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


Message 194 of 269 (559611)
05-10-2010 5:42 PM


Patrice laughs hysterically at ni**er joke
Just in case anyone is feeling like Patrice himself can't take a racist joke. Here is a clip, from the O&A show, in which a white comic (Louis CK) makes a completely racist joke and Patrice laughs at it. He does not get offended, he does not demand an apology...why? Because he knows it was just a joke and not meant in any kind of harsh manner.
First, I find this bit hilarious...anyone else?
See, comics know comedy. They know how to laugh at themselves and they don't take shit so serious.
Now, why didn't this OBVIOUSLY racist remark gather any kind of backlash? Simple. Because a black guy was there and approved of the joke. Had it been some PC cop, they would have made a big stink about it.
- Oni

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Rrhain, posted 05-21-2010 4:11 AM onifre has not replied

  
aiki
Member (Idle past 4283 days)
Posts: 43
Joined: 04-28-2010


Message 195 of 269 (559689)
05-11-2010 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Straggler
05-05-2010 12:45 PM


Re: Last Was-ism?
Hmmm, I see the thread's moved on a bit (I've been off photographing a variety of gull species, you know, the ones that are 'still all gulls' according to A. Creationist despite being COMPLETELY DIFFERENT) but I wanted to thank you for that post
You should!! Seriously as long as you can research stuff to layman level that is all that is really required to meaningfully take part in even the most technical threads. The real experts that EvC is blessed with are willing to educate all but the most stubbornly dogmatic (of which there are also plenty). And a lot of threads are not that technical or even debate heavy anyway. And you can always just undertake debate target practice on hardline creos if you want some fun for the hell of it
I'm doin' it! Well, made a start anyway. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 05-05-2010 12:45 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Straggler, posted 05-11-2010 12:48 PM aiki has not replied
 Message 201 by Straggler, posted 05-17-2010 3:47 PM aiki 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