Sure, why not? Let's discuss what makes something funny
Bringing up such a trivial slip of the tongue under almost any context just doesn't make any sense. A guy says 57 instead of 47, and you're talking about it 10 years later? Ridiculous.
And in case you're wondering, about the only honest context to talk about this slip is to discuss how it was blown up out of all proportion by the media and the right, and how it's still being brought up by a certain class of people.
drummerboy said:
And in case you're wondering, about the only honest context to talk about this slip is to discuss how it was blown up out of all proportion by the media and the right, and how it's still being brought up by a certain class of people.
Let's discuss what makes something funny. BHO's 57 state comment was funny when it happened. Just as Dan Quayle misspelling of "potato" was funny when that happened. Also BHO misspelling of the word "respect" is also funny.
My theory on why funny: all of the above confirm that even famous politicians are still human.
How about you provide your theory on why these are funny (or not funny).
Smedley said:
Ok, some humor is objective and some humor is subjective, and you can determine which is which.
i wanna go to a comedy club with you.
you should.
I'm a great audience. Because I know what's funny.
ml1 said:
The tweet is devoid of whimsy, irony, absurdity, wit -- not funny.
I re-entered this fairly ridiculous discussion agains my better judgment but I'm here so I'll play along and make one last point.
To refresh, the tweet in question was:
>>>Oh no, really big political news, perhaps the biggest story in years! Part time Mayor of New York City, @BilldeBlasio, who was polling at a solid ZERO but had tremendous room for growth, has shocking dropped out of the Presidential race. NYC is devastated, he’s coming home!<<<
You say it's devoid of absurdity, but actually it's full of absurdity.
Note that among other things, absurd means illogical.
From the tweet:
"really big political news, perhaps the biggest story in years!" -- illogical, thus absurd. It's actually small political news.
"had tremendous room for growth" -- illogical, thus absurd. Nobody gave DeBlaz a snowball's chance in Hades.
"NYC is devastated, he's coming home!" -- illogical, thus absurd. Actually, the vast majority of NYC residents probably didn't give a hoot one way or the other, and DB's return to NYC had zero impact on their daily lives.
So the tweet was plenty absurd, which is one of your necessary ingredients for something to be funny. You may not see any absurdity which is fine -- so it's subjectively not funny to you -- but it's subjectively funny to other people.
I wouldn't go as far as saying it's objectively funny because I don't know that there is such a thing, but based on your own criteria, it's a lot closer to being objectively funny than objectively not funny.
Smedley said:
I re-entered this fairly ridiculous discussion agains my better judgment but I'm here so I'll play along and make one last point.
To refresh, the tweet in question was:
>>>Oh no, really big political news, perhaps the biggest story in years! Part time Mayor of New York City, @BilldeBlasio, who was polling at a solid ZERO but had tremendous room for growth, has shocking dropped out of the Presidential race. NYC is devastated, he’s coming home!<<<
You say it's devoid of absurdity, but actually it's full of absurdity.
Note that among other things, absurd means illogical.
From the tweet:
"really big political news, perhaps the biggest story in years!" -- illogical, thus absurd. It's actually small political news.
"had tremendous room for growth" -- illogical, thus absurd. Nobody gave DeBlaz a snowball's chance in Hades.
"NYC is devastated, he's coming home!" -- illogical, thus absurd. Actually, the vast majority of NYC residents probably didn't give a hoot one way or the other, and DB's return to NYC had zero impact on their daily lives.
So the tweet was plenty absurd, which is one of your necessary ingredients for something to be funny. You may not see any absurdity which is fine -- so it's subjectively not funny to you -- but it's subjectively funny to other people.
I wouldn't go as far as saying it's objectively funny because I don't know that there is such a thing, but based on your own criteria, it's a lot closer to being objectively funny than objectively not funny.
It’s ****, is what it is.
joanne said:
I’ve had the most annoying morning in terms of wifi access, and have lost an earlier reply to RFA, thanking for the contextual link.
sigh.
Thank you everyone else for your input.
in relation to my comments on mis-speaking, as a result of my acquired brain injury I have an intermittent form of aphasia through which I repeat back whatever words someone has just used with me. That wipes out whatever thought I was holding onto in my mind. Or, what I’m focusing on can replace what I should be using in normal speech as a naturally flowing reply. Normally I’m high functioning enough that people don’t notice my disability. But I only hold 3-5 things in my working memory (most people hold 9-15), and when it’s really busy my processing really drops.
so I’m seriously wondering, what’s going on in Colorado that T’s trying to contain it there? Because his body language doesn’t show humour, neither does his face. Quite the opposite.
I am now more impressed than ever by your posts. "normally high functioning" is an understatement.
Smedley said:
I re-entered this fairly ridiculous discussion agains my better judgment but I'm here so I'll play along and make one last point.
The story of my life on MOL.
Tim Russert on MTP:
What's the worst thing about political jokes?
Sen. Dole:
Sometimes they get elected.
Smedley said:
I re-entered this fairly ridiculous discussion agains my better judgment but I'm here so I'll play along and make one last point.
To refresh, the tweet in question was:
>>>Oh no, really big political news, perhaps the biggest story in years! Part time Mayor of New York City, @BilldeBlasio, who was polling at a solid ZERO but had tremendous room for growth, has shocking dropped out of the Presidential race. NYC is devastated, he’s coming home!<<<
You say it's devoid of absurdity, but actually it's full of absurdity.
Note that among other things, absurd means illogical.
From the tweet:
"really big political news, perhaps the biggest story in years!" -- illogical, thus absurd. It's actually small political news.
"had tremendous room for growth" -- illogical, thus absurd. Nobody gave DeBlaz a snowball's chance in Hades.
"NYC is devastated, he's coming home!" -- illogical, thus absurd. Actually, the vast majority of NYC residents probably didn't give a hoot one way or the other, and DB's return to NYC had zero impact on their daily lives.
So the tweet was plenty absurd, which is one of your necessary ingredients for something to be funny. You may not see any absurdity which is fine -- so it's subjectively not funny to you -- but it's subjectively funny to other people.
I wouldn't go as far as saying it's objectively funny because I don't know that there is such a thing, but based on your own criteria, it's a lot closer to being objectively funny than objectively not funny.
Trump's hyperbole was too obvious to be absurd. So no, not funny.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
I re-entered this fairly ridiculous discussion agains my better judgment but I'm here so I'll play along and make one last point.
To refresh, the tweet in question was:
>>>Oh no, really big political news, perhaps the biggest story in years! Part time Mayor of New York City, @BilldeBlasio, who was polling at a solid ZERO but had tremendous room for growth, has shocking dropped out of the Presidential race. NYC is devastated, he’s coming home!<<<
You say it's devoid of absurdity, but actually it's full of absurdity.
Note that among other things, absurd means illogical.
From the tweet:
"really big political news, perhaps the biggest story in years!" -- illogical, thus absurd. It's actually small political news.
"had tremendous room for growth" -- illogical, thus absurd. Nobody gave DeBlaz a snowball's chance in Hades.
"NYC is devastated, he's coming home!" -- illogical, thus absurd. Actually, the vast majority of NYC residents probably didn't give a hoot one way or the other, and DB's return to NYC had zero impact on their daily lives.
So the tweet was plenty absurd, which is one of your necessary ingredients for something to be funny. You may not see any absurdity which is fine -- so it's subjectively not funny to you -- but it's subjectively funny to other people.
I wouldn't go as far as saying it's objectively funny because I don't know that there is such a thing, but based on your own criteria, it's a lot closer to being objectively funny than objectively not funny.
Trump's hyperbole was too obvious to be absurd. So no, not funny.
I can't quite tell if you declaring yourself arbiter of all things funny is satire or not. If it is, it's kind of funny I must say, so kudos.
If you're saying this stuff with a straight face, I can't help you, but I'm sure there are excellent therapists out there who specialize in megalomania disorders. Good luck.
Smedley said:
I can't quite tell if you declaring yourself arbiter of all things funny is satire or not. If it is, it's kind of funny I must say, so kudos.
If you're saying this stuff with a straight face, I can't help you, but I'm sure there are excellent therapists out there who specialize in megalomania disorders. Good luck.
it's partially tongue in cheek and partially serious. I'm serious in saying that Donald Trump is not funny. And I'm far from the only one saying it.
But why do you find it strange that a person might have a lot of experience with the creation of comedy, and have some expertise in what makes good comedy versus lame, unfunny attempts at comedy?
jfinnegan said:
is too soon for the Family Guy skit with Stewie and Will Ferrell?
not at all.
ml1 said:
But why do you find it strange that a person might have a lot of experience with the creation of comedy, and have some expertise in what makes good comedy versus lame, unfunny attempts at comedy?
I don't find it strange at all. But this is different from the premise of the debate which has been whether or not one can legitimately declare that one tweet is or is not objectively funny.
Smedley said:
I don't find it strange at all. But this is different from the premise of the debate which has been whether or not one can legitimately declare that one tweet is or is not objectively funny.
one can legitimately declare that. That one tweet didn't contain any of the elements of comedy. Not to say that some people might not laugh at it. But if you submitted that tweet as a "joke" to a late night show, I can say legitimately that it would have been rejected 100% of the time.
"one can legitimately declare that." -- disagree.
"That one tweet didn't contain any of the elements of comedy." -- I said it was plenty absurd, you said the hyperbole was too obvious to be absurd, which makes little/no sense because generally the more obvious a hyperbole is, the more absurd it is. Absurdity is not about nuance, it's about ridiculousness.
"if you submitted that tweet as a "joke" to a late night show, I can say legitimately that it would have been rejected 100% of the time." -- probably true but irrelevant to the discussion. Lots of good basketball players can't make it in the NBA.
Anyway that's it for me here, I mean it this time, my mind has been bent enough from this exercise. The last word is yours.
Smedley said:
"one can legitimately declare that." -- disagree.
"That one tweet didn't contain any of the elements of comedy." -- I said it was plenty absurd, you said the hyperbole was too obvious to be absurd, which makes little/no sense because generally the more obvious a hyperbole is, the more absurd it is. Absurdity is not about nuance, it's about ridiculousness."if you submitted that tweet as a "joke" to a late night show, I can say legitimately that it would have been rejected 100% of the time." -- probably true but irrelevant to the discussion. Lots of good basketball players can't make it in the NBA.
Anyway that's it for me here, I mean it this time, my mind has been bent enough from this exercise. The last word is yours.
just because you said the tweet was absurd doesn't make it so. And if the tweet was at all funny, no one could say for 100% certain that a TV show might not have accepted it as a submission. So the fact that even you agree there's virtually no chance it would be pretty much clinches it.
And if you read the actual tweet and the responses, even among the people who like it, almost no one is calling it funny. They're calling it true. Which it was, generally speaking.
And I'll actually give the last word to this guy:
ridski said:
It’s ****, is what it is.
Nothing better to do than investigate its own investigation? It sounds humorous but it depends on context. The DOJ started with just a part time AG. Gotta keep all those beurocrats busy. Or is just plain old government ineptitude
ml1 said:
lord_pabulum said:
Is this funny?
What do you think?
My degree in logic (which did include a semester on Chomsky and Wittgenstein as we debated the nature of reality) would have me answer, 'Now, that is absurd'.
ETA: oh! Maybe someone's trying out some Kafka-like reality tv themes??
lord_pabulum said:
Nothing better to do than investigate its own investigation? It sounds humorous but it depends on context. The DOJ started with just a part time AG. Gotta keep all those beurocrats busy. Or is just plain old government ineptitude
Without context it would have been a humorous headline. But knowing the story ahead of time makes it kind of a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
joanne said:
My degree in logic (which did include a semester on Chomsky and Wittgenstein as we debated the nature of reality) would have me answer, 'Now, that is absurd'.
ETA: oh! Maybe someone's trying out some Kafka-like reality tv themes??
it is absurd. But in more of a sad way than a funny way.
ml1 said:
joanne said:
My degree in logic (which did include a semester on Chomsky and Wittgenstein as we debated the nature of reality) would have me answer, 'Now, that is absurd'.
ETA: oh! Maybe someone's trying out some Kafka-like reality tv themes??
it is absurd. But in more of a sad way than a funny way.
Just because you said it was absurd doesn’t make it so.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
joanne said:
My degree in logic (which did include a semester on Chomsky and Wittgenstein as we debated the nature of reality) would have me answer, 'Now, that is absurd'.
ETA: oh! Maybe someone's trying out some Kafka-like reality tv themes??
it is absurd. But in more of a sad way than a funny way.
Just because you said it was absurd doesn’t make it so.
A logic tree would demonstrate it is.
ETA: to be clear, I’m replying to the question of the DOJ investigating the origins of its own inquiry process.
Smedley said:
Just because you said it was absurd doesn’t make it so.
Joanne said it was absurd
Tell me more so that I can understand what is wrong with bringing up this gaffe of BHO.