Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 158 (8125 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-18-2014 5:38 AM
87 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 86 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Happy Birthday: Spiritual Anarchist
Post Volume:
Total: 736,170 Year: 22,011/28,606 Month: 1,098/1,410 Week: 300/524 Day: 3/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314151617
18
Author Topic:   Gender and Humor
onifre
Member
Posts: 4853
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 yet responded

    
onifre
Member
Posts: 4853
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 responded

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

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 2356
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 258 of 269 (567193)
06-30-2010 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by dronester
06-29-2010 1:33 PM


Re: Gender and Humor
Ummm, thanks guys for returning to my original topic, "Gender and Humor."

I guess.

You are most welcome, sir.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by dronester, posted 06-29-2010 1:33 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 2356
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 259 of 269 (567194)
06-30-2010 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by onifre
06-29-2010 4:48 PM


Re: Fag?
Btw, does anyone like fishdicks?

I should have thought of that!

I guess that's why you're the comedian and I'm not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by onifre, posted 06-29-2010 4:48 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 260 of 269 (567410)
07-01-2010 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2010 2:54 PM


Re: Fag?
Hyroglyphx writes:

And then you have the fags (losers, not homosexuals) that are still offended by even that. Fucking pussies. It's ironic. I think the thing that offends me the most are people who are too easily offended. Irony knows no bounds!


Heh. That's what I always say if someone is whining that they're offended and that therefore, the word/action being dicussued should be banned.

I say: "I get offended by people who get offended, now ban yourself!"

Shuts them right up, or they whine even harder.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 2:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 261 of 269 (567587)
07-01-2010 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dronester
04-28-2010 9:29 AM


You want more women on this thread, eh? Not sure I can add much.

Favorite women comedians: Carol Burnett, Ruth Buzzi, Minnie Pearl, Doris Day.

I don't see much stand up comedy so most of mine are from movies and TV.

quote:
Please name up to FIVE of your favorite FUNNY movies.
A lot of them over the years. Hard to pick just five. I'm a Danny Kaye and Red Skelton fan.

Court Jester (Danny Kaye)
Yours, Mine and Ours (Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball)
RV
Liar, Liar
The Librarian series


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dronester, posted 04-28-2010 9:29 AM dronester has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by dronester, posted 07-02-2010 9:33 AM purpledawn has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 5720
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 262 of 269 (567653)
07-02-2010 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Hyroglyphx
06-28-2010 11:29 AM


Hyroglyphx responds to me:

quote:
I'm not muzzling her, I'm protesting her

Did you or did you not say the following:

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.

So as long as her speech doesn't have any actual effect, then she can say what she wants. But the moment some action does take place based upon her argument, then there's a problem.

How is that not muzzling her?

quote:
She wants to get certain things taken off the air (that's censorship).

No, it isn't. Censorship is governmental restriction of speech. She's just talking to society in order to convince others of an argument. The result of that may be that society no longer finds such attitudes expressed in the O&A bit acceptable, but that isn't censorship. That's the very marketplace of ideas you claim to be defending.

quote:
We don't need the government intervening and threatening speech, when the market (the audience) will decide what is appropriate and what is not.

And exactly how was the government involved in the O&A situation?

quote:
You have no clue what censorship is, do you?

Nice try. That's my question to you. As I have repeated pointed out, nobody was arrested, nobody was sent to jail, there was no criminal case, not even a stern talking to by police officers or criminal prosecutors.

And yet, you're the one that keeps throwing out the word "censorship."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

quote:
The CRITICAL DIFFERENCE (pay attention) is that she wants to take him off the air so that no one has the ability to hear what he has to say. THAT'S censorship.

No, it isn't. Censorship is governmental restriction of speech. She's just talking to society in order to convince others of an argument. The result of that may be that society no longer finds such attitudes expressed in the O&A bit acceptable, but that isn't censorship. That's the very marketplace of ideas you claim to be defending.

quote:
You don't like what he said? Change the fucking channel...

Why? Why not respond to what was said? We'll let society figure out who has the better idea.

quote:
She crossed the threshold when she wanted to censor his material.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Censorship is governmental restriction of speech. She's just talking to society in order to convince others of an argument. The result of that may be that society no longer finds such attitudes expressed in the O&A bit acceptable, but that isn't censorship. That's the very marketplace of ideas you claim to be defending.

Question: Suppose O&A's audience all decided that it was inappropriate, they didn't like it, and they all left. Would that be "censorship"?

If not, why would Ms. Ossario's comment leading to the audience saying, "You know, she's right," and them leaving be "censorship"? It isn't like she can make anybody stop listening. She has no power to actually remove them from the air. She is not the government, she doesn't have control over broadcasting licenses, she doesn't regulate the air waves or satellite communications.

So how is convincing others that her analysis is correct an example of "censorship"?

As someone so recently said, you have no clue what censorship is, do you?

quote:
Show me the reference I made about your sexuality before you starting talking about your dick.

Huh? I didn't talk about my dick.

I said that onifre was posturing by using the common phrase, "wave your dick at me."

I then said that Patrice was compensating for a lack of having an argument by using the common phrase, "I'm very sorry about his penis."

You will note that in neither case did I refer to my own genitalia.

And more importantly, you will note that in neither case did I actually make any reference to either of their sexualities, neither as a question of being gay or straight nor even as a question of the physical act of sex, itself. These are known as "metaphors." When someone says, "wave your dick," the meaning has nothing to do with someone placing his hands upon his penis and flapping it about in the air. It's why you can say it to a woman: It isn't about an actual penis but rather about the posturing. Similarly, "I'm sorry about your penis" isn't actually a comment of sympathy about erectile dysfunction. It's about somebody using bluster and hype as a compensatory mechanism.

But despite this very clear useage, onifre decided to turn it into a commentary on my sexuality. This despite the fact that "prick" had been tossed around and nobody seemed to mind.

So if we all can understand how one word that references a penis ("prick") can be used such that it doesn't actually mean "a penis," what is so special about these other ones?

And then there's you:

That's your opinion, just like it's my opinion that you're a melodramatic theater hag.

Let us not pretend that you chose that phrase at random.

Why is it you have such a hard time avoiding thinking about sex when you talk to me?

quote:
What.... the..... fuck.... are...... you....... talking..... about??? Are you out of your fucking mind??? Where do you come up with this shit??? I'm seriously flabbergasted... I don't even know what to say, this is so off the wall insane.

Did you or did you not say in Message 183:

That's your opinion, just like it's my opinion that you're a melodramatic theater hag.

Please, let us not play dumb and pretend that you chose that phrase at random. You talk a good game about how you've changed, but it's nothing but talk. Your "revelation" that you are actually NJ doesn't surprise me in the slightest. You've been cleaner about the way you talk about gay people, but your homophobia is still quite rampant.

quote:
This isn't the first time you've mentioned your cock in an argument COMPLETELY unsolicited, and then falsely accused others of being obsessed. WTF?!?!?

Indeed: "WTF?!?!?!" Where did I talk about my cock?

Message 180

Now that you've had your chance to wave your dick at me....

...

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.

When did the word "your" come to mean "my"? When did the word "his" come to mean "my"?

I didn't talk about my cock. Onifre did. I didn't talk about my sex life. You did.

I just turned it around on you. So let's try a little experiment: You stop making references, however veiled they may be, about my sex life and we'll see how long I can go without bringing it up.

quote:
How many times must I repeat that consequences are fine and dandy?

Until you actually mean it. Because you keep tossing around the word "censorship" as if there was any such thing going on here. Because you keep saying things like, "You don't like what he said? Change the fucking channel...." So long as her speech doesn't cause any actual change, then she's allowed to talk all she wants but as soon as her arguments convince people to mete out consequences on O&A, then there's a problem.

You can repeat it all you want, but you have to justify why her presenting an argument that results in people saying, "Yeah, she's right," and responding appropriately by no longer providing the stage for O&A to perform on is such a horrible thing. They don't have a right to Sirius' airtime. And if her argument convinces Sirius that they don't want to employ O&A's services anymore, how is that "censorship" and not the vaunted marketplace of ideas you claim to be defending?

quote:
My sole problem is that she wants to censor people from saying what they want.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Censorship is governmental restriction of speech. She's just talking to society in order to convince others of an argument. The result of that may be that society no longer finds such attitudes expressed in the O&A bit acceptable, but that isn't censorship. That's the very marketplace of ideas you claim to be defending.

quote:
But don't censor people.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Censorship is governmental restriction of speech. She's just talking to society in order to convince others of an argument. The result of that may be that society no longer finds such attitudes expressed in the O&A bit acceptable, but that isn't censorship. That's the very marketplace of ideas you claim to be defending.

quote:
Show me where I'm trying to make her silent.

Did you or did you not say the following:

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.

So as long as her speech doesn't have any actual effect, then she can say what she wants. But the moment some action does take place based upon her argument, then there's a problem.

How is that not trying to make her silent? So long as she's effective, she must be quiet.


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 237 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2010 11:29 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 5720
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 263 of 269 (567662)
07-02-2010 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Cat Sci
06-28-2010 11:55 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:
From my experiences, you're usually wrong about what you think the other person is thinking.

So why is it nobody ever answers my direct questions asking why the conclusion doesn't follow?

quote:
At least for me, whenever you write: "So, what you're really saying is...." whatever follows that is not what I'm really saying and you've got it all wrong.

So the logical response is to then say, "That doesn't follow for the difference between what I said and the conclusion you drew is...."

Instead, what I get is nothing more than a restatement of the original problem that still leads to the conclusion that I drew despite my asking questions to have them explain why A does not lead to B.

Take this bit: The argument from Patrice, onifre, and Hyro was that those who don't like what happened should just "shut the fuck up about it" and "change the channel."

Oh...so there shouldn't be any consequences?

If the response is, "But I think there should be consequences," then that requires explanation such as, perhaps, giving examples of what consequences might be acceptable. "Shut the fuck up about it" doesn't actually bring any consequences to O&A for their actions. Nor does "change the channel."

As I asked Hyro just now: Suppose O&A's audience all decided that it was inappropriate, they didn't like it, and they all left. Would that be "censorship"?

If not, why would Ms. Ossario's comment leading to the audience saying, "You know, she's right," and them leaving be "censorship"? It isn't like she can make anybody stop listening. She has no power to actually remove them from the air. She is not the government, she doesn't have control over broadcasting licenses, she doesn't regulate the air waves or satellite communications.

The only thing she can do is persuade people of her argument. And yet, that seems to be problematic. So long as her argument doesn't actually lead to any consequences to O&A, she's golden but the moment there are any actual consequences to be meted out, there's a problem.

Repeating the word "censorship" a la Hyroglyphx doesn't actually answer the question. As already pointed out, there is no censorship. I've explained how the arguments put forth lead to a conclusion of "no consequences." So if that isn't what is meant, then something new needs to be brought up that explains how what was said doesn't lead to the conclusion.

If all you do is repeat the same refuted claim, all you get is the same refutation. You have to come up with something new.

quote:
I think you assume the worst of people

That would require I have emotional investment in you. Why do you think that?

quote:
And one huge problem with your approach is that it violates the rules of this forum: Argue the position, not the person.

Where do I ever argue the person without said person opening the door? You will note, Hyroglyphx and I were actually discussing the topic at hand up until the moment he said:

That's your opinion, just like it's my opinion that you're a melodramatic theater hag.

I gave it a couple lines of silly response, turning it back around on him, and he couldn't let it go. If he wants to stop having his homophobia pointed out, he should probably stop exposing it for all to see.

D'oh! I said, "expose"! Now somebody's going to think I was talking about him sexually exposing himself.

And then they'll call me a fag.

Let's see if that prediction fails to come true.

quote:
"Get to"!? Why would you want to? Its stupid and annoying.

For whom? Youm? That you're annoyed is my problem why?

Again, the solution is simple: Answer my questions, stop playing dumb, and don't simply repeat the same refuted argument. We'll get much further.


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 238 by Cat Sci, posted 06-28-2010 11:55 AM Cat Sci has not yet responded

    
dronester
Member
Posts: 1122
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 264 of 269 (567699)
07-02-2010 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by purpledawn
07-01-2010 7:51 PM


Another female in the thread, WHOOPEEE . . .
Hi purpledawn,

I think this is the first time I addressed you on the forum. Howdy m'am!

Ruth Buzzi! Wow, that's one female's name that has slipped through history's cracks. My brother and I usually use her and fellow laugh-in comedien Joann Worley as a nod to B-rated actresses. (If we need examples of B-rated actors we usually use Bill Bixby, Burt Convey or whoever else appeared on television's LoveBoat series.) But Ruth was pretty big in the 60s and 70s. Perhaps she was a precurser to Gilda Radner, so I think your choice is actually a pretty good one.

However Minnie Pearl??? Yikes!

Yep, I like Red Skelton. But Danny Kaye??? Yikes again.

Thanks for the picks, this first part "proves" you have a funny bone or two and are now "authorized" to answer the second part: On average, generally do you believe women to be less funny than men? (Do you concur with any of the research findings in Message 193 in this thread?)

drnstr

Edited by AdminPD, : Msg Link added


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by purpledawn, posted 07-01-2010 7:51 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by purpledawn, posted 07-02-2010 10:53 AM dronester has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 265 of 269 (567721)
07-02-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by dronester
07-02-2010 9:33 AM


Re: Another female in the thread, WHOOPEEE . . .
quote:
However Minnie Pearl??? Yikes!
I'm a country fan, sorry. Overall I like clean humor.

quote:
On average, generally do you believe women to be less funny than men?
Not really.

I think I would basically agree with the findings and conclusions in Message 193. There are always exceptions.

While I use humor around family and friends, I don't around strangers. My humor isn't usually perceived well until one knows me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by dronester, posted 07-02-2010 9:33 AM dronester has not yet responded

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 266 of 269 (611294)
04-07-2011 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by onifre
05-05-2010 3:25 PM


Sam Kinison
I noticed several of his pieces are up on Hulu now, for those who missed, are simply curious, or may have forgotten here's the link.

http://www.hulu.com/sam-kinison-comedy-specials


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by onifre, posted 05-05-2010 3:25 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 267 of 269 (611814)
04-11-2011 10:39 AM


I believe that Blazing Saddles would not even be allowed to be released if it were a brand new film made in the modern era. Too many racist jokes.

I've seen that movie a couple of times on network stations and they butcher it all to hell.

In the meantime, there's a difference between acting and stand up comedy. Very few women are actually funny because , like Kathy Griffin, all they really do is cap on other people and tell stupid disparaging jokes that are meant to cut down men.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msYQ75-7OWo


Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by dronester, posted 04-12-2011 10:46 AM Tram law has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1122
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 268 of 269 (611943)
04-12-2011 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Tram law
04-11-2011 10:39 AM


Too many racist jokes
I believe that Blazing Saddles would not even be allowed to be released if it were a brand new film made in the modern era. Too many racist jokes.

Have you ever watched the cartoon television show "Family Guy"? I am amazed what they get away with, especially during pre-prime-time (dinner-time/afterschool). The open-ness and difference in today's childhood is quite radically different than from my time. I wonder how it will play out in society in the end. I am amazed that there appears to be no concern about personal privacy, in either government or commercial roles. For example, it shocks me that so many people willingly give away personal photos and info on sites such as Facebook. Maybe there will be some good things that will come about this new "open-ness" society, I don't know.

I think the humor-studies, as I briefly touched on here, Message 193, describing the gender difference in humor is plausible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Tram law, posted 04-11-2011 10:39 AM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 269 of 269 (612271)
04-14-2011 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2010 2:54 PM


Re: Fag?
Hyroglyphx writes:

The meaning of the word is changing, as English words are wont to do, as homosexuality becomes less and less a social pariah; it's just no longer so insulting to suggest that a guy might like the cock. In fact, the only people who still really get offended by the suggestion of being gay (as opposed to the use of the word "fag") are the homophobes themselves, a fact i find to be deliciously ironic.

Yes, words evolve quite a bit. The words "fag" and "gay" has many modern connotations now or days. It used be solely reserved for homosexuals, but with the increase of homosexual tolerance, now it means much more. If someone says, "stop being such a fag," he likely isn't telling him to stop being a homosexual. In fact, he probably doesn't mean to be derrogatory towards homosexuals at all. What he really means is, "stop being such a pussy" (another word that has many connotations)

Another phrase, "that's so gay," doesn't mean "that reminds me of homosexuals," it likely means "that's so lame." Some people, to not disparage homosexuals while still realizing the relevance of the modern phrasing, substitute "gay" with "ghey." So if you want to say that's so lame, you can say that's so ghey, instead of insulting homosexuals.

And then you have the fags (losers, not homosexuals) that are still offended by even that. Fucking pussies. It's ironic. I think the thing that offends me the most are people who are too easily offended. Irony knows no bounds!

And "That's gay" also refers to motorcycle enthusiasts who make too much noise for attention.

Not to be confused with real Hell's Angels.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 2:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1314151617
18
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014