Norman_Bates said:

 Totally agree.  Mere numbers are not de facto proof of importance or insignificance.

Great, though I don't think that anyone was arguing that numbers alone define importance.

LOL on Tracey Ullman's skit:

https://twitter.com/bbccomedy/status/1010189882503950336?s=09

That was funny.

This sounds truer:

For many years, I showed a film in a course I taught at Penn that included a rape scene. A woman who had been raped asked to speak with me after class one year. She reasonably and respectfully suggested that it would have been thoughtful of me to let the students know the movie included sexual assault. This rape survivor said I could have paused the film just prior to that moment, given students the option to excuse themselves until the scene ended, and then invited them back in to watch the rest of it. Note that she did not infringe on my academic freedom by saying I must never again show that movie in any class I teach. But a heads up, she maintained, would have been helpful. This is the degree of reasonableness that students across all racial groups express when they talk about trigger warnings in our climate studies.

it really wasn't that funny. In its own way the skit was as preachy as people who are "woke."

ml1 said:
it really wasn't that funny. In its own way the skit was as preachy as people who are "woke."

 And there we have it, folks.

ridski said:

ml1 said:
it really wasn't that funny. In its own way the skit was as preachy as people who are "woke."

 And there we have it, folks.

 I'll bet you didn't laugh either 

I think we can all agree that Chandler couldn’t be any more annoying.

DaveSchmidt said:
That was funny.
This sounds truer:
For many years, I showed a film in a course I taught at Penn that included a rape scene. A woman who had been raped asked to speak with me after class one year. She reasonably and respectfully suggested that it would have been thoughtful of me to let the students know the movie included sexual assault. This rape survivor said I could have paused the film just prior to that moment, given students the option to excuse themselves until the scene ended, and then invited them back in to watch the rest of it. Note that she did not infringe on my academic freedom by saying I must never again show that movie in any class I teach. But a heads up, she maintained, would have been helpful. This is the degree of reasonableness that students across all racial groups express when they talk about trigger warnings in our climate studies.

 What is that passage from.  I would agree that fair warning of potentially objectionable material is generally a good idea. 

ml1 said:

ridski said:

ml1 said:
it really wasn't that funny. In its own way the skit was as preachy as people who are "woke."

 And there we have it, folks.

 I'll bet you didn't laugh either 

 Sorry if you were triggered.  I didn't find it preachy.  It was a 1 minute skit that illustrated what a minefield discussions can be with people who are let's say, sensitive.  

You say tomato, I say tomato. 

terp said:

ml1 said:

ridski said:

ml1 said:
it really wasn't that funny. In its own way the skit was as preachy as people who are "woke."

 And there we have it, folks.

 I'll bet you didn't laugh either 

 Sorry if you were triggered.  I didn't find it preachy.  It was a 1 minute skit that illustrated what a minefield discussions can be with people who are let's say, sensitive.  
You say tomato, I say tomato. 

 I wasn't "triggered." I'm not one of those folks so I don't take it personally. I just thought it was pretty hackneyed stuff. 

ml1 said:

terp said:

ml1 said:

ridski said:

ml1 said:
it really wasn't that funny. In its own way the skit was as preachy as people who are "woke."

 And there we have it, folks.

 I'll bet you didn't laugh either 

 Sorry if you were triggered.  I didn't find it preachy.  It was a 1 minute skit that illustrated what a minefield discussions can be with people who are let's say, sensitive.  
You say tomato, I say tomato. 

 I wasn't "triggered." I'm not one of those folks so I don't take it personally. I just thought it was pretty hackneyed stuff. 

 A fictionalized extreme example created to make fun for laughs isn't always the best way to make a point.

I could go into an explanation of why the sketch falls short on humor. But there is nothing more boring and pretentious than someone trying to explain comedy. 

https://youtu.be/JCWMcmZtt-Y

terp said:

 What is that passage from.  I would agree that fair warning of potentially objectionable material is generally a good idea. 

Been there for all to read since Norman_Bates posted and recommended the link nine days ago.

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

 What is that passage from.  I would agree that fair warning of potentially objectionable material is generally a good idea. 

Been there for all to read since Norman_Bates posted and recommended the link nine days ago.

 Ah.  I will go back and look.  I've been travelling for business and and am preparing to travel for pleasure, so I haven't exactly been locked in so to speak.   This week coming up is looking pretty hellish, tbh.  But then, fun in the sun!   

ml1 said:
I could go into an explanation of why the sketch falls short on humor. But there is nothing more boring and pretentious than someone trying to explain comedy. 

https://youtu.be/JCWMcmZtt-Y

 Why is comedy beyond explanation?

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:
I could go into an explanation of why the sketch falls short on humor. But there is nothing more boring and pretentious than someone trying to explain comedy. 

https://youtu.be/JCWMcmZtt-Y

 Why is comedy beyond explanation?

It's something of a joke itself to suggest that there's nothing more tedious (or pretentious) than someone lecturing about what's funny. Thus the video link. 

drummerboy said:

ml1 said: I could go into an explanation of why the sketch falls short on humor. But there is nothing more boring and pretentious than someone trying to explain comedy.  https://youtu.be/JCWMcmZtt-Y

 Why is comedy beyond explanation? 

 Not really an explanation, but —

I’m noticing that some of the biggest “snowflakes” out there these days are comedians complaining that people are too sensitive to laugh at their jokes. That’s such nonsense. If people aren’t laughing it’s because the jokes aren’t funny. Laughter is spontaneous and people can’t just stop themselves from laughing at something out of “PC.”  Maybe later they’ll reconsider whether a joke was mean or offensive. But Seinfeld and Bill Maher and others are whining about people not laughing at jokes that are frankly not funny. Seinfeld joking that people scrolling on their phones look like “gay French kings.” How is that funny? What does it even mean? I’m not surprised no one laughed. 

And you don’t have to be “woke” to be of the opinion that Friends hasn’t aged well. If you’re 20 years old, you don’t have to be PC to wonder why Chandler and Joey are so panicked if someone might think they’re gay. Or if you wonder why there are no people of color in NYC. Times change and things that seemed normal decades ago now seem a little puzzling. Like watching the Dick Van Dyke Show today and thinking it's strange when Rob frets so much about Laura potentially working outside the home. 

A lot of humor doesn’t travel well across generations. We don’t laugh at racist Loony Tunes cartoons anymore, or watch Amos & Andy. Times change, context changes and stuff that used to make people laugh doesn’t anymore. Generally that’s thought of as progress. 

I always think the simplest review of "comedy" is, "punching up" or "punching down"?

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

ml1 said: I could go into an explanation of why the sketch falls short on humor. But there is nothing more boring and pretentious than someone trying to explain comedy.  https://youtu.be/JCWMcmZtt-Y

 Why is comedy beyond explanation? 

 Not really an explanation, but —
I’m noticing that some of the biggest “snowflakes” out there these days are comedians complaining that people are too sensitive to laugh at their jokes. That’s such nonsense. If people aren’t laughing it’s because the jokes aren’t funny. Laughter is spontaneous and people can’t just stop themselves from laughing at something out of “PC.”  Maybe later they’ll reconsider whether a joke was mean or offensive. But Seinfeld and Bill Maher and others are whining about people not laughing at jokes that are frankly not funny. Seinfeld joking that people scrolling on their phones look like “gay French kings.” How is that funny? What does it even mean? I’m not surprised no one laughed. 
And you don’t have to be “woke” to be of the opinion that Friends hasn’t aged well. If you’re 20 years old, you don’t have to be PC to wonder why Chandler and Joey are so panicked if someone might think they’re gay. Or if you wonder why there are no people of color in NYC. Times change and things that seemed normal decades ago now seem a little puzzling. Like watching the Dick Van Dyke Show today and thinking it's strange when Rob frets so much about Laura potentially working outside the home. 
A lot of humor doesn’t travel well across generations. We don’t laugh at racist Loony Tunes cartoons anymore, or watch Amos & Andy. Times change, context changes and stuff that used to make people laugh doesn’t anymore. Generally that’s thought of as progress. 

 But telling those who are errantly parking automobiles in cross-walks that people are keying cars is funny? 

 A threat of vandalism/property damage is funny?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

PS Perhaps the errant person parking deserves more in the future?  Perhaps the errant parker deserves to be punched in the nose (like a nazi because parking in a cross-walk is no longer a boorish, as****e move but has moved up to nazi scale).  Where does the encouragement of violence and property damage end?

RealityForAll said:

 But telling those who are errantly parking automobiles in cross-walks that people are keying cars is funny? 
 A threat of vandalism/property damage is funny?
Two wrongs do not make a right.

PS Perhaps the errant person parking deserves more in the future?  Perhaps the errant parker deserves to be punched in the nose (like a nazi because parking in a cross-walk is no longer a boorish, as****e move but has moved up to nazi scale).  Where does the encouragement of violence and property damage end?

LET’S GET THIS STRAIGHT DEPT.

Per Merriam-Webster:

Definition of joke

1a : something said or done to provoke laughter;  especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist 
b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something  
(2) : an instance of jesting : kidding

When ml1 concluded this exchange in another thread ...

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said: maybe you would have got a different response if you told him you wanted to give him a friendly warning that people are keying cars parked in crosswalks. 

 I get your message.  But, it sounds a lot more like a mob offer to provide fire insurance.

It's a joke  

... I think it’s safe to say he meant No. 1b(2).

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

 But telling those who are errantly parking automobiles in cross-walks that people are keying cars is funny? 
 A threat of vandalism/property damage is funny?
Two wrongs do not make a right.

PS Perhaps the errant person parking deserves more in the future?  Perhaps the errant parker deserves to be punched in the nose (like a nazi because parking in a cross-walk is no longer a boorish, as****e move but has moved up to nazi scale).  Where does the encouragement of violence and property damage end?

LET’S GET THIS STRAIGHT DEPT.
Per Merriam-Webster:
Definition of joke
1a : something said or done to provoke laughter;  especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist 
b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something  
(2) : an instance of jesting : kidding
When ml1 concluded this exchange in another thread ...

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said: maybe you would have got a different response if you told him you wanted to give him a friendly warning that people are keying cars parked in crosswalks. 

 I get your message.  But, it sounds a lot more like a mob offer to provide fire insurance.

It's a joke  

... I think it’s safe to say he meant No. 1b(2).

 Once again, since when is the threat of property damage or vandalism funny?

Sounds more like a veiled threat.  

Once again, I am concerned that some MOL posters are encouraging physical violence or veiled threats to solve problems.  There are alternatives such as:  i.) talking with the purported violator, ii.) calling police regarding the situation, iii.) taking a picture and then going the police station to swear out a complaint for driver being in violation of NJSA 39:4-138 (Place Where Parking is Prohibited), iv.) letting Arturo's know that some of its customers are creating a dangerous situation and ask Arturos's to help enforce these rules (for example, ask Arturo's not to serve those who are illegally parked), etc.  See:  https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2009/title-39/39-4/39-4-138

PS Are you not concerned that the errant driver may respond in a more aggressive manner when a veiled threat is made? IMHO, such a veiled threat is likely to escalate the situation (further, describing such a veiled threat as a joke is a form of escalation).  This type of behavior is right out of the Sopranos.

Ml1 wasn’t being serious. I’m going to file the post of 11:18 a.m. under 1b(2) as well.

RealityForAll said:

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

 But telling those who are errantly parking automobiles in cross-walks that people are keying cars is funny? 
 A threat of vandalism/property damage is funny?
Two wrongs do not make a right.

PS Perhaps the errant person parking deserves more in the future?  Perhaps the errant parker deserves to be punched in the nose (like a nazi because parking in a cross-walk is no longer a boorish, as****e move but has moved up to nazi scale).  Where does the encouragement of violence and property damage end?

LET’S GET THIS STRAIGHT DEPT.
Per Merriam-Webster:
Definition of joke
1a : something said or done to provoke laughter;  especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist 
b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something  
(2) : an instance of jesting : kidding
When ml1 concluded this exchange in another thread ...

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said: maybe you would have got a different response if you told him you wanted to give him a friendly warning that people are keying cars parked in crosswalks. 

 I get your message.  But, it sounds a lot more like a mob offer to provide fire insurance.

It's a joke  

... I think it’s safe to say he meant No. 1b(2).

 Once again, since when is the threat of property damage or vandalism funny?


Sounds more like a veiled threat.  
Once again, I am concerned that some MOL posters are encouraging physical violence or veiled threats to solve problems.  There are alternatives such as:  i.) talking with the purported violator, ii.) calling police regarding the situation, iii.) taking a picture and then going the police station to swear out a complaint for driver being in violation of NJSA 39:4-138 (Place Where Parking is Prohibited), iv.) letting Arturo's know that some of its customers are creating a dangerous situation and ask Arturos's to help enforce these rules (for example, ask Arturo's not to serve those who are illegally parked), etc.  See:  https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2009/title-39/39-4/39-4-138


PS Are you not concerned that the errant driver may respond in a more aggressive manner when a veiled threat is made? IMHO, such a veiled threat is likely to escalate the situation (further, describing such a veiled threat as a joke is a form of escalation).  This type of behavior is right out of the Sopranos.

 What a joke.

drummerboy said:

RealityForAll said:

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

 But telling those who are errantly parking automobiles in cross-walks that people are keying cars is funny? 
 A threat of vandalism/property damage is funny?
Two wrongs do not make a right.

PS Perhaps the errant person parking deserves more in the future?  Perhaps the errant parker deserves to be punched in the nose (like a nazi because parking in a cross-walk is no longer a boorish, as****e move but has moved up to nazi scale).  Where does the encouragement of violence and property damage end?

LET’S GET THIS STRAIGHT DEPT.
Per Merriam-Webster:
Definition of joke
1a : something said or done to provoke laughter;  especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist 
b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something  
(2) : an instance of jesting : kidding
When ml1 concluded this exchange in another thread ...

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said: maybe you would have got a different response if you told him you wanted to give him a friendly warning that people are keying cars parked in crosswalks. 

 I get your message.  But, it sounds a lot more like a mob offer to provide fire insurance.

It's a joke  

... I think it’s safe to say he meant No. 1b(2).

 Once again, since when is the threat of property damage or vandalism funny?


Sounds more like a veiled threat.  
Once again, I am concerned that some MOL posters are encouraging physical violence or veiled threats to solve problems.  There are alternatives such as:  i.) talking with the purported violator, ii.) calling police regarding the situation, iii.) taking a picture and then going the police station to swear out a complaint for driver being in violation of NJSA 39:4-138 (Place Where Parking is Prohibited), iv.) letting Arturo's know that some of its customers are creating a dangerous situation and ask Arturos's to help enforce these rules (for example, ask Arturo's not to serve those who are illegally parked), etc.  See:  https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2009/title-39/39-4/39-4-138


PS Are you not concerned that the errant driver may respond in a more aggressive manner when a veiled threat is made? IMHO, such a veiled threat is likely to escalate the situation (further, describing such a veiled threat as a joke is a form of escalation).  This type of behavior is right out of the Sopranos.

 What a joke.

 Thanks for your input Tony   .   .   .   .   .  .   .   .   .   .  .   .   .   .   . Soprano.

DaveSchmidt said:
Ml1 wasn’t being serious. I’m going to file the post of 11:18 a.m. under 1b(2) as well.

 The issue is not whether ml1 is being serious (or a very failed attempt at humor). IMHO, the issue is what would the reasonable person (in this case the errant driver believe) to be the motive or intentions of ml1 acting as the aggressive do-gooder.

PS I believe violation of the vandalism statute, 2C:33-4 is a fourth degree felony (in NJ a felony is AKA as an "indictable offense" or a "crime") if it is only personal property defaced or damaged.

PPS Once again, threatening to commit a 4th degree felony is not funny in my opinion.

not surprised you don't get the joke. Nothing I've read from you suggests any sense of whimsy or absurdity. 

But the joke is in the absurdity of telling someone to tell someone that. Of course no one is going to tell someone that. That's the joke. 

Jeebus. Hard to believe that needed to be explained. Even harder to believe someone actually took it as threatening. 

But dying is easy. Comedy is hard. Especially with some folks on MOL. 

I don't think the primary complaint is that people aren't laughing.  Nobody has to laugh; that's silly.  What I find problematic is that if someone is insulted, there seems to be a desire to stop everyone from seeing/hearing that person.  

I'm not sure which performers you're referring to who are being prevented from getting gigs. 

I'm responding to the specific mention of Friends in thr Ullman video, and the specific complaints from Seinfeld and Maher and the many comedian guests on Maher's show. They constantly complain that audiences aren't laughing at certain jokes because they're too uptight and PC. Having heard some of the jokes, I contend that it's not the audience's PC attitudes. It's that the jokes aren't very funny. I know it's hard for veteran stand ups to accept that. But sometimes a gay joke that would have got a laugh in 1980 just isn't funny now. Not because the audience is too "woke," but because the context of the joke is different now. 

More comedy:

Mogulof [the Berkeley public-affairs administrator] hurried to Sproul Plaza, where he had called a press conference for print and TV reporters, both local and national. “I just texted someone from the Patriot,” one reporter said to another. “I asked if Free Speech Week was cancelled, and the response was ‘LOL, unclear.’ So that’s my headline, I guess: ‘LOL, Unclear.’ ”

As Mogulof spoke to the reporters, an undergraduate sociology student walked by, holding an iced coffee and a Rice Krispies Treats wrapper. She shouted a question at Mogulof: “Students have a right to go to their classes and feel safe in their classrooms, and you’re ready to compromise that for, like, the First Amendment that you’re trying to uplift?”

“Your concerns are right on the money,” Mogulof said. The student was not satisfied. She continued to ask questions, using her phone to film the interaction. As she talked, a few of the TV cameras swung toward her. “Please do not take video of me!” she said, holding up her phone like a talisman.

“Um, it’s a press conference,” one of the camera operators said.

The full article — that isn’t the only choice moment — in the latest New Yorker:

How Social-Media Trolls Turned U.C. Berkeley Into a Free-Speech Circus

Good interview with Nadifne Strossen of the ACLU regarding free speech.  Ms. Strossen is also a professor of constitutional law.  Dave Rubin interviews Ms. Strossen on free speech, Trump, Skokie free speech (from days of yore).  

Youtube link to Strossen interview: