The idea that one is not raped by a trusted friend is not cemented firmly in the popular mind. All you've done is describe a rape scenario that people understand to be a common way that rape comes about.
This is one of those things I'm just going to let go. I think pretty much everyone would be surprised if their trusted friend raped them. The truth is so boring and analytic that it's hardly worth mentioning. We will have to disagree.
Let's say for the sake of argument that you did write a joke there. You're trying to show that people won't tell that joke because it's impermissible, I'm saying people wouldn't tell that joke because it doesn't work.
But I anticipated this response awhile back,
here. I don't think you are able to discern the difference between an impermissible joke and a joke that is merely not-funny.
If that is a joke, then this is a joke:
Clara sat down to play Chess with a trusted friend. He cheated when she wasn't looking.
It works exactly the same as your joke except that it doesn't involve what you would deem impermissible material. People aren't going to tell that joke either because it doesn't work. The subject matter doesn't matter. It's how well the joke functions that determines whether it's funny or not.
Earlier you told me that a joke is something that conceals and then reveals. Very early on in our conversation I contested that idea, but you wouldn't budge. Now we have jokes that conform perfectly to your definition, and you claim they aren't jokes. And if they aren't funny, what happened to the idea that humor is in the eye of the beholder? "
Early on in the conversation I critiqued your understanding of humor and I think that is the source of these problems." By all means, re-evaluate your definitions of humor and jokes, because as of now I am playing by your rules.
-------------------------
I'd like to hear more about your thoughts on treating heavy subjects lightly like I was asking in the other post. Initially you said that some subjects are too heavy and they shouldn't ever be treated lightly, but I've given example jokes that treat rape, saving babies from death, and anti-semitism lightly and you've given them all a pass.
Your quote is interesting. I think I understand what the first general was saying. I wouldn't agree unqualifiedly, though.
You also have said that some jokes can actually serve to show a subject as evil, like my anti-semite bit from David Cross. So what about my first-person narrative jokes where the subject of humor is my villainy? Is it permissible to use heavy topics in humor as long as those topics being negative is integral to the humor? Jimmy Carr did a bit about this:
I've been working on a new joke, but I'm not sure if I should tell it. See, some people might think that it's just a touch on the sexist side of things, and I certainly wouldn't want people to think I'm sexist. In fact, I like to think of myself as a feminist. So the last thing that I would want to do is light the fuse on some chick's tampon.
If you were offended by that joke, you have to understand that it isn't real misogyny, but rather a kind of post-modern misogyny. If we all didn't recognize that was a terribly sexist thing to say, the joke wouldn't be funny. If we thought, as people did long ago, that saying something of that nature was normal, then the joke wouldn't work. So if you are a woman, and you were offended by that joke, don't you worry your pretty little head over it. - Jimmy Carr (loosely paraphrased)
Hehe... Let me say something first. When you analyze and dissect a topic you are applying simple principles to a complex thing. If we analyze and critique a song we can break it down into different aspects (e.g. vocals, rhythm section, song form, production quality/mastering, etc.). Jokes--especially ones such as you just posted--are incredibly complex entities. What I have been trying to do in this thread is isolate one aspect (i.e. moral effects inferred from the intellectual nature of jokes/humor). That's why my "rape joke" was so simple. It demonstrates the principle I am trying to illustrate in a way that isolates the principle.
It's like if we were talking about songs and I was stressing the importance of vocals. I play you an
a capella song with terrible vocals. You're like, "Yeah, that's bad, but it's so bad I'm not even sure if it qualifies as a song." Then you keep playing me songs with questionable vocals yet with other mitigating factors that are quite good.
I'm giving you a principle. You can try to disagree with the principle, but I don't think that's rational. What you
do with the principle is up to you. How you
apply it is up to you. Like so many things in life, the application of such a principle is a prudential matter.
If jokes serve to reinforce the negative emotions we should have about these heavy topics, aren't they a good thing?
Lots of things are good and bad in different ways. A single redeeming quality doesn't automatically make something good.
But yes, I think that I admitted earlier that to reinforce a good negative emotion is a good thing. (Note: you just described certain negative emotions as things "we should have," thus giving a value judgment to emotions contrary to your previous position on emotions. 100 points to Hufflepuff!
)
You know, laughter feels good, so it can be seen as a reward. If we're rewarded with laughter for recognizing evil, isn't that positive reinforcement to recognize it as evil in the future as well?
Yes, I agree.
If this all makes sense, and I'll acknowledge that I'm just riffing on psychology 101 and our conversation thus far, wouldn't that mean that some rape jokes are good if you tell them right?
Perhaps... I'm not really sure if your conclusion follows. I've been pretty clear in my language, "Laughing at rape," "Making light of rape," "Condoning rape." The only thing I've said which could be construed to oppose all 'rape jokes' unconditionally would be the aura argument, but I don't think that argument has the force of unconditional prohibition.
...wouldn't that mean that some rape jokes are good if you tell them right?
(Proviso: The joke above is rich with meaning and hard to analyze.)
The punch line of the first joke/paragraph is, "So the last thing that I would want to do is light the fuse on some chick's tampon." Why is it funny?
- He is playing the fool on himself by manifesting an unawareness that such a statement is contrary to his belief that he is a non-sexist feminist.
- He is violating a stern feminist principle while at the same time alluding to the idea that feminists are uptight. (Breaking a rule in order to laugh at the rigidity of the rule-makers)
- Per his own 'analysis,' he is using shock humor via sexism (I see this as questionable)
Let's look at (3). First, let's assume I'm right and part of his schtick is shock humor. IMO to simply say something contrary to public opinion or morals is not intrinsically funny. It requires more context to be funny. He gave that additional context (the 'rule-makers,' the feminists, need to lighten up--they take themselves too seriously. I think this was your point about laughing at something that is too heavy, thus rightly lightening the subject). He also gives a counterfactual: "If we all didn't recognize that was a terribly sexist thing to say, the joke wouldn't be funny. If we thought, as people did long ago, that saying something of that nature was normal, then the joke wouldn't work." (The second punch-line, which follows his counterfactual, is gold
) The counterfactual is true but insufficient. It is true that if the first punch line wasn't perceived to be sexist the joke wouldn't function. Thus it is a necessary condition, but it isn't a sufficient condition. Feminism's reputation as something which is rather onerous and heavy is also necessary. The joke requires that both of these things be in place in place to function. The presentation (embodied in (1)) is icing on the cake that ties these two things together perfectly.
Quickly, note that the too-heavy thing in this joke is Feminism, and it can be laughed at because it is too heavy. I don't know what the parallel term would be in a rape joke. More importantly, I don't know what the
necessary parallel term would be in a rape joke. That is, if you are going to make fun of (and therefore lighten) a too-heavy reality, you could probably do it equally well in a joke that doesn't involve fictitious rape. I don't think rape itself could fill that role, because I don't think our perception of rape is too heavy. Perhaps our perception of sexual abuse is a little over-the-top, but I am talking about rape proper.
...And since I've written too long of a post, I may as well add to it.
This is us:
Orel: No jokes are always impermissible.
Zip: If a joke is *about* a reality which it is impermissible to laugh at, then that joke is impermissible.
Zip: There are realities which it is impermissible to laugh at.
Zip: Jokes can be made *about* these realities.
Zip: Those jokes are impermissible.
First, I'm not hung up on rape. It just seemed like one of the easiest ways to illustrate my point. It still does.
Second, a great deal of our disagreement seems to revolve around what is meant by "about." I tried to give some precision to that idea when I spoke of the intent of the jester and the reception of the hearer,
here.
Jokes aren't funny because they surprise characters in those jokes, they're funny because they surprise the audience. You only mentioned that Clara trusted him, you didn't make any effort to make the audience trust her friend. That would be a conceal.
