Conquer Club

Another aspect of off color or blue humor is people knowing that it's a joke and that it shouldn't be taken seriously. There is always the chance of offending someone in a group regardless of who they are or that some people will never find certain subjects humorous at all.

oVo wrote:Another aspect of off color or blue humor is people knowing that it's a joke and that it shouldn't be taken seriously. There is always the chance of offending someone in a group regardless of who they are or that some people will never find certain subjects humorous at all.

Tbh I really consider the source when deciding whether or not someone is being intentionally offensive when telling a politically incorrect joke and I would certainly say there are ways to tell.
A generally intellectual person I would say makes a very voluntary decision to tell a politically incorrect joke and therefore beyond the humor of the joke is more or less making a statement/declaration about their belief system. A less intellectual person I would say intentionally tells a politically incorrect joke in the spirit that making another group the butt makes his/her group feel just a little bit higher. I'm also not saying that one is necessarily any better than the other but one can certainly more successfully plead ignorance than the other. Note that I emphasize intentionally since anyone who unintentionally tells a politically incorrect joke, in other words doesn't immediately realize that there is a group that could be offended, cannot really be put in the same boat as someone who does.
I am in no way suggesting that a thoughtful person can't tell a un-pc joke for the second reason and vise versa. These are more or less generalizations.

And then of course there is a huge overlap of people from both groups(intellectual vs. non-intellectual) who choose to never make politically incorrect jokes, at least intentionally, in respect of the feelings of others. I'm getting the impression that most the participants of this thread thus far all fall into this last group.

Huh....Intellectuals = don't like bad jokes? So dumb people like bad jokes....I guess I see where you're trying to go with this, however I know a raft of smart folks (a CEO, a CIO, a CFO, several attorneys ($400 / hour plus)....2 uppity scientists....) that tell / like jokes in bad taste. Perhaps it gives a nice relief to the pressures of being smart or "using intelligence in a professional or individual capacity".

Although I am sure one would hear bad jokes more frequently in say some dive bar infested with white trash, I still think it's a pretty broad generalization Funky-Tee - the socially conscious person simply is more careful about who he tells a bad joke to in my experience.

And on the subject of humor dissection, what up with your signature? What does that acronym stand for and is the pic making fun of the Amish? Or 3rd world countries that can't afford tow trucks? Or just stupid people???

KoolBak wrote:Huh....Intellectuals = don't like bad jokes? So dumb people like bad jokes....I guess I see where you're trying to go with this, however I know a raft of smart folks (a CEO, a CIO, a CFO, several attorneys ($400 / hour plus)....2 uppity scientists....) that tell / like jokes in bad taste. Perhaps it gives a nice relief to the pressures of being smart or "using intelligence in a professional or individual capacity".

Nah, I thought that my post might be misinterpreted since it wasn't written all that clearly but I wasn't saying that at all. I'm not saying an intellectual is any more intelligent than a non-intellectual, just that they have different focuses and therefore most likely(but not always) tell "bad jokes" through different motivating factors than non-intellectuals. Does that help to clarify?

KoolBak wrote: I still think it's a pretty broad generalization Funky-Tee - the socially conscious person simply is more careful about who he tells a bad joke to in my experience.

Ok, why would you say this is true then? Because the socially conscious person is more aware of the ramifications of said joke, right?

KoolBak wrote:And on the subject of humor dissection, what up with your signature? What does that acronym stand for and is the pic making fun of the Amish? Or 3rd world countries that can't afford tow trucks? Or just stupid people???

You can't possibly be offended by my signature because you can't possibly know what it's referring to, judging by your guesses so far.
If you really want me to explain my avatar, I could probably do so through pm but just remember you asked for it?

thegreekdog wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:Ever read any Heinlein? In "Stranger in a Strange Land," Mike the Martian did not understand humor. As part of trying to get Mike comfortable with his humanity and culture on this strange-to-him world (despite genetically he was human, he was born on Mars, raised by Martians, so was "Martian" in thinking) they took him to the zoo. There, he saw a big ape pummel a medium-sized ape who turned around and pummelled a smaller ape, and it made Mike laugh and he finally understood humor.

When I read that novel for the second time (a few months ago), I found that I did not agree with Mike's interpretation of humor. Simply put, my children laughed at stuff before the understood cruelty or depression. So it doesn't fly with me.

Really? Because I've always observed that children laugh at the most immediate and observable situation where a person is hurt; of all the humorous children programs I've seen there's always some physical-type humor where the butt of the joke is tripping and falling down, knocking things over, getting hurt, etc. Think of the old cartoons where Wile E. Coyote blows himself up.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:Ever read any Heinlein? In "Stranger in a Strange Land," Mike the Martian did not understand humor. As part of trying to get Mike comfortable with his humanity and culture on this strange-to-him world (despite genetically he was human, he was born on Mars, raised by Martians, so was "Martian" in thinking) they took him to the zoo. There, he saw a big ape pummel a medium-sized ape who turned around and pummelled a smaller ape, and it made Mike laugh and he finally understood humor.

When I read that novel for the second time (a few months ago), I found that I did not agree with Mike's interpretation of humor. Simply put, my children laughed at stuff before the understood cruelty or depression. So it doesn't fly with me.

Really? Because I've always observed that children laugh at the most immediate and observable situation where a person is hurt; of all the humorous children programs I've seen there's always some physical-type humor where the butt of the joke is tripping and falling down, knocking things over, getting hurt, etc. Think of the old cartoons where Wile E. Coyote blows himself up.

-TG

I believe it's the silliness of the suddenness/chaos of an "accident" that is found humorous by young children, not the pain/destruction involved. If the victim of said accident starts crying, a child will generally then act concerned.

Why is it silly, though? Because it's incongruous with children's observations of behavior and carriage. If you expect a person to walk straight but he ends up slipping on a banana peel, he loses his dignity, and you laugh.

Why do clowns throw pies at each other?

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Why is it silly, though? Because it's incongruous with children's observations of behavior and carriage. If you expect a person to walk straight but he ends up slipping on a banana peel, he loses his dignity, and you laugh.

Why do clowns throw pies at each other?

-TG

Yes, I agree with the incongruity part but not the pain part. I think that the banana peel seems funny not because of the loss of dignity of another but in the realization that someone else, other than ourselves, is capable of doing something unwittingly embarrassing. At least that's how I interpret it.
I'm not sure if you noticed that I edited my past post to say that when a child witnesses an "accident" where someone stumbles, they tend to switch from glee to concern when they realize that the person may actually be hurt. This implies that the pain is not the source of the humor response.

Funkyterrance wrote:KoolBak wrote:
I still think it's a pretty broad generalization Funky-Tee - the socially conscious person simply is more careful about who he tells a bad joke to in my experience.

Ok, why would you say this is true then? Because the socially conscious person is more aware of the ramifications of said joke, right?

Yes!

And I am NOT offended by your avatar....just trying to figure you out Thanks for your clarifications.....I am expecting your PM