Sure, why not? Let's discuss what makes something funny

ridski said:

 You’re both banned from my Blackadder viewing party.

 Sorry, I should have written stuff that is only mean-spirited.

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

 yeah, there's nothing like the image of a guy drowning to bring on the yuks.

 Until I started bringing up this topic I wasn't aware how many people think mean-spirited stuff is funny.  I guess it explains all those red hats laughing it up at Trump rallies.

Kind of sounds like you(ml1) are attempting another bite at your prior argument that we should not "celebrate" the fact that the  investigation regarding JE's demise is moving forward.  And, should not celebrate that Dr. Baden has added his conclusion (regarding injuries to JE's throat bones being MORE consistent with murder than suicide).  And, should not celebrate that Dr. Baden has added his gravitas and support for a thorough and extensive investigation of JE's demise.

PS We are not celebrating JE but the fact that the investigation into JE's demise is moving forward.

ml1 said:

ridski said:

 You’re both banned from my Blackadder viewing party.

 Sorry, I should have written stuff that is only mean-spirited.

 Poetic justice is NOT mean spirited inherently (although poetic justice often arises from tragedy).

RealityForAll said:

Kind of sounds like you(ml1) are attempting another bite at your prior argument that we should not "celebrate" the fact that the  investigation regarding JE's demise is moving forward.  And, should not celebrate that Dr. Baden has added his conclusion (regarding injuries to JE's throat bones being MORE consistent with murder than suicide).  And, should not celebrate that Dr. Baden has added his gravitas and support for a thorough and extensive investigation of JE's demise.

PS We are not celebrating JE but the fact that the investigation into JE's demise is moving forward.

if you have to start with "kind of sounds like" you should stop right there.  

RealityForAll said:

 Poetic justice is NOT mean spirited inherently (although poetic justice often arises from tragedy).

 wasn't responding to you but to ridski. It's not always about you. 

Oh geez this thread resurfaces again. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.

IMO the most absurd bit of the thread was ml1 saying the Trump tweet was not absurd, when any reasonable assessment would be that it was full of absurdity. But the hill, that the tweet was objectively not funny, had to be defended.

Smedley said:

Oh geez this thread resurfaces again. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.

IMO the most absurd bit of the thread was ml1 saying the Trump tweet was not absurd, when any reasonable assessment would be that it was full of absurdity. But the hill, that the tweet was objectively not funny, had to be defended.

not for nothing, but I think the only person commenting who thought it was funny was you. 

and for the people who thought the Mullaney clip wasn't funny, maybe they'll like this one.  I think it's sharper than the other one.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

Oh geez this thread resurfaces again. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.

IMO the most absurd bit of the thread was ml1 saying the Trump tweet was not absurd, when any reasonable assessment would be that it was full of absurdity. But the hill, that the tweet was objectively not funny, had to be defended.

not for nothing, but I think the only person commenting who thought it was funny was you. 

If there were an poll on whether it was funny or not funny I doubt I would be the only F vote. But that’s irrelevant because even if I was, I wouldn’t care. I respect people’s right to find stuff funny or not funny and I expect the same from others. Not a fan of the “objectively not funny” tag which strikes me as Orwellian and implies I’m wrong for finding it funny. 

Smedley said:

If there were an poll on whether it was funny or not funny I doubt I would be the only F vote. But that’s irrelevant because even if I was, I wouldn’t care. I respect people’s right to find stuff funny or not funny and I expect the same from others. Not a fan of the “objectively not funny” tag which strikes me as Orwellian and implies I’m wrong for finding it funny. 

It's not wrong. It is what it is. But you thought a guy being kicked while he's down is funny and after I pointed out it really isn't "funny", you've gone to great lengths to try to "prove" that a juvenile taunt was anything more than that. 

Some people do think taunts and bullying are funny. But that doesn't make it humor. 

funny?

I’ve hardly “gone to great lengths” to try to prove it was funny. I just said i wouldn’t care if I was the only one who thought it was funny. Is that consistent with needing to prove it was funny?

I have been pushing back on the notion that it was objectively unfunny. You may think you “pointed out it really isn’t funny”, but actually you yourself disproved what you were trying to prove when you cited absurdity as an element of funniness. 

The thing is, slapstick and related physical ‘humour’ often works as it does because of the injury and victimhood, even if the cause isn’t as overt as an Evil Bully or Nemesis constantly plucking on the antihero. People tend to laugh out of sympathy or embarrassment or out of relief it’s not them in that situation; less sophisticated audiences laugh because the anti-hero can’t predict the consequence or avert it. 
There are centuries of discussion on this, it doesn’t help going over it.

What does help (which I think was the point of the thread) is working out our common social and ethical values, then living up to them. Those in high office should embody the best standard of those values particularly when representing us to the world. 

drummerboy said:

funny?

 I don’t think so. 

But, it’s “funny” - previous in this discussion, ml1 noted that the content in the trump tweet wouldn’t have gotten a sniff from late night tv if it were submitted as a joke, as support for the notion that the trump tweet was objectively unfunny. 

This stuff you posted was featured on late night tv, so by that same logic, it can’t be objectively unfunny. The only question is, by that logic, is it objectively funny?

Smedley said:

I’ve hardly “gone to great lengths” to try to prove it was funny. I just said i wouldn’t care if I was the only one who thought it was funny. Is that consistent with needing to prove it was funny?

I have been pushing back on the notion that it was objectively unfunny. You may think you “pointed out it really isn’t funny”, but actually you yourself disproved what you were trying to prove when you cited absurdity as an element of funniness. 

 you went to some effort to try and prove it funny. And no, something is not not absurd just because you say it is. Most of that tweet was literally true, so not absurd. It's like calling an overweight guy obese. Hardly absurd. 

You could probably have just admitted Trump's tweet wasn't really funny but you enjoyed DeBlasio being mocked. 

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

I’ve hardly “gone to great lengths” to try to prove it was funny. I just said i wouldn’t care if I was the only one who thought it was funny. Is that consistent with needing to prove it was funny?

I have been pushing back on the notion that it was objectively unfunny. You may think you “pointed out it really isn’t funny”, but actually you yourself disproved what you were trying to prove when you cited absurdity as an element of funniness. 

 you went to some effort to try and prove it funny. And no, something is not not absurd just because you say it is. Most of that tweet was literally true, so not absurd. It's like calling an overweight guy obese. Hardly absurd. 

You could probably have just admitted Trump's tweet wasn't really funny but you enjoyed DeBlasio being mocked. 

“Most of that tweet was literally true”

Ok let’s see. I’ll star what’s not literally true.

>>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!<<

That’s 7 things not literally true, pretty much the entirety of the tweet.

But, still not absurd. Nope. And still objectively not funny. Yep.

The heart of that is true. Polling near zero for president (nowhere to go but up) and polling badly in NYC. The rest is taunting. You've been grasping from the start. 

ml1 said:

The heart of that is true. Polling near zero for president (nowhere to go but up) and polling badly in NYC. The rest is taunting. You've been grasping from the start. 

 And, exactly what is Smedley grasping at?

Why won't you use quotes so the entire exchange is in one spot?

ml1 said:

The heart of that is true. Polling near zero for president (nowhere to go but up) and polling badly in NYC. The rest is taunting. You've been grasping from the start. 

Please. From the start my premise was that I thought it was funny. Never had an issue with anyone else thinking it wasn’t funny. I don’t know why I would have to grasp to defend a plain vanilla premise of subjective humor.

You’re the one who took it a step further and asserted it was objectively not funny, i.e. some things should be laughed at and others shouldn’t. Much harder to defend. I believe I’ve made a rational argument to effectively disprove your claim, but you’ve doubled down and you’re dug in, so I’ll leave you in your foxhole. 

RealityForAll said:

Why

Because we can scroll. 

RealityForAll said:

 And, exactly what is Smedley grasping at?

Why won't you use quotes so the entire exchange is in one spot?

 Why is everyone obsessed with forcing us to read the same things over and over again?

Smedley said:

Please. From the start my premise was that I thought it was funny. Never had an issue with anyone else thinking it wasn’t funny. I don’t know why I would have to grasp to defend a plain vanilla premise of subjective humor.

You’re the one who took it a step further and asserted it was objectively not funny, i.e. some things should be laughed at and others shouldn’t. Much harder to defend. I believe I’ve made a rational argument to effectively disprove your claim, but you’ve doubled down and you’re dug in, so I’ll leave you in your foxhole. 

 I didn't mean to imply there are things that shouldn't be  laughed at. People laugh at all kinds of things. But that doesn't mean they are inherently funny to anyone else.  
Just because something takes the form of joke doesn't make it funny. 

RealityForAll said:

 And, exactly what is Smedley grasping at?

Why won't you use quotes so the entire exchange is in one spot?

 this is a strange obsession you seem to have. 
It's because quoting an entire long exchange is a pain in the *** for people reading on a phone. 

ridski said:

RealityForAll said:

 And, exactly what is Smedley grasping at?

Why won't you use quotes so the entire exchange is in one spot?

 Why is everyone obsessed with forcing us to read the same things over and over again?

 Because ml1 especially has a habit of pretending that the prior discourse was different than the actual discourse that occurred. 

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

 And, exactly what is Smedley grasping at?

Why won't you use quotes so the entire exchange is in one spot?

 this is a strange obsession you seem to have. 
It's because quoting an entire long exchange is a pain in the *** for people reading on a phone. 

Using quotes costs nothing in a digital world.  And, prevents the unscrupulous from miscategorizing or describing prior exchanges.

Using quotes costs nothing and provides clarity, so why are you NOT using quotes?

RealityForAll said:

Using quotes costs nothing in a digital world.  And, prevents the unscrupulous from miscategorizing or describing prior exchanges.

Using quotes costs nothing and provides clarity, so why are you NOT using quotes?

 I just answered this question above. But if you're trying to be funny, I get it. It's a bit derivative of "Who's on First?" but it's kind of clever. I'm supposed to do a slow burn as you keep repeating the same stupid question and I keep answering it, until I have a hilarious blow up. It worked for Laurel and Hardy and Abbott and Costello so why not us?

RealityForAll said:

 Because ml1 especially has a habit of pretending that the prior discourse was different than the actual discourse that occurred. 

 this is not true.  And it would be pointless, since the entire discourse is still there for people to see. Why do you continue to lie about this?

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

 Because ml1 especially has a habit of pretending that the prior discourse was different than the actual discourse that occurred. 

 this is not true.  And it would be pointless, since the entire discourse is still there for people to see. Why do you continue to lie about this?

 You(ml1) are the one who has a habit of mischaracterizing prior dialogue.  Not I.  

RealityForAll said:

 Because ml1 especially has a habit of pretending that the prior discourse was different than the actual discourse that occurred. 

 No he doesn’t.

RealityForAll said:

 You(ml1) are the one who has a habit of mischaracterizing prior dialogue.  Not I.  

 I've asked you to provide examples  of my changing or deleting posts and you have nothing.  Seriously, stop repeating this lie.