Argument from truth

[Moral Orel]

The harm that I am speaking of only relates to a distortion of reality and leading people into false beliefs and impressions.

What false beliefs and impressions do you think I hold because I joke about anything?

Yes, perhaps. There are too many variables to give a simple answer, but it could be fine.

Then we agree that even when humor has the purpose of causing emotional harm, it can still be a good thing.

It would still detract from his honor. Perhaps he doesn't mind it being detracted from, but it would still detract.

But so what? If he enjoys the detraction, then no harm no foul. Imagine if Jeff Ross won an award for anything. Do you think he would want whatever ceremony held in his honor to be anything other than a roast? Wouldn't he probably be upset if it wasn't a roast? Is maintaining the solemnity of some occasion more important than making the honoree feel good about the occasion itself?

Since you believe that there is no type of occasion that oughtn't be detracted from (or leveled, or made light), it would seem that humor really is your highest value, so to speak. Put differently, you do not believe in any reality that is higher than humor.

That could only be true if I would tell any joke to anyone indiscriminately.

 

[zippy2006]

What false beliefs and impressions do you think I hold because I joke about anything?

That everything is a proper subject of humor, that nothing shouldn't be detracted from, etc. Just the things we've been talking about.

Then we agree that even when humor has the purpose of causing emotional harm, it can still be a good thing.

Sure.

But so what? If he enjoys the detraction, then no harm no foul. Imagine if Jeff Ross won an award for anything. Do you think he would want whatever ceremony held in his honor to be anything other than a roast? Wouldn't he probably be upset if it wasn't a roast? Is maintaining the solemnity of some occasion more important than making the honoree feel good about the occasion itself?

That could only be true if I would tell any joke to anyone indiscriminately.

You're sort of stuck on the subjectivity angle--on whether anyone is personally offended by a joke. I haven't really touched that topic in the entire thread because I don't find it very interesting. Suppose, for example, that you tell a reasonably clean joke and someone is offended. That doesn't mean you did anything wrong per se, it just means that someone is too sensitive. Whether people are offended isn't really the point. The point is whether the act is objectively offensive or problematic. The first question of whether subjective offense is taken is indicative of this second objective question, but the relation is only correlative.

I don't have too much more to say. If you like we could revisit the fact that humor detracts from honor and would be out of place at a ceremony awarding the medal of honor. You responded with the subjective tack: "If the recipient isn't offended then it's okay." I would say that an inappropriate act does not become appropriate due to the fact that some or all do not recognize that it is inappropriate. Further, if you cracked a joke that detracted from the honor of the recipient at the very epitome of his honoring, then many would be offended, and they would be right.

The deeper drill could produce a radical subjectivism--the idea that you don't believe in objective values at all and therefore are only able to measure the appropriateness of an action according to subjective receipt. I would see that as a false belief, too.

(Anyway, sorry to rush the conversation but I'm trying to get off the map for awhile and I don't really want to leave this one hanging. )

 

[Moral Orel]

That everything is a proper subject of humor, that nothing shouldn't be detracted from, etc. Just the things we've been talking about.

But... You were supposed to be explaining to me the harm that comes from treating everything as the proper subject of humor. And you're telling me that the harm is causing yourself to believe that there's no harm that comes from treating everything as the proper subject of humor because that belief would be false. It's a bit circular, ya?

You're sort of stuck on the subjectivity angle--on whether anyone is personally offended by a joke. I haven't really touched that topic in the entire thread because I don't find it very interesting. Suppose, for example, that you tell a reasonably clean joke and someone is offended. That doesn't mean you did anything wrong per se, it just means that someone is too sensitive. Whether people are offended isn't really the point. The point is whether the act is objectively offensive or problematic. The first question of whether subjective offense is taken is indicative of this second objective question, but the relation is only correlative.

If some topics are objectively offensive, then all other topics are not objectively offensive. That means that when someone feels offended at something not objectively offensive, they are feeling the incorrect emotions; and if someone remains stoic in the face of something that is objectively offensive, then they are feeling the incorrect emotions. That doesn't seem absurd to you?

It's sort of akin to telling someone who was pricked by a needle that yelping in pain is the incorrect response. Or someone else is incorrect to not yelp. Some folks have a low threshold for pain, some folks like pain. Who is objectively correct?

I don't have too much more to say. If you like we could revisit the fact that humor detracts from honor and would be out of place at a ceremony awarding the medal of honor. You responded with the subjective tack: "If the recipient isn't offended then it's okay." I would say that an inappropriate act does not become appropriate due to the fact that some or all do not recognize that it is inappropriate. Further, if you cracked a joke that detracted from the honor of the recipient at the very epitome of his honoring, then many would be offended, and they would be right.

What makes it inappropriate? If Jeff Ross was to receive the medal of honor, I think it would be rude of the crowd to insist that it be a somber event when he wants a roast (and if you're familiar with Jeff Ross, you know he would).

The deeper drill could produce a radical subjectivism--the idea that you don't believe in objective values at all and therefore are only able to measure the appropriateness of an action according to subjective receipt. I would see that as a false belief, too.

I believe that happiness is objectively valuable, and so is avoiding unhappiness. The rest is pretty much just juggling all the subjective stuff that comes flying our way. No topic for a joke is objectively offensive. Can you demonstrate that is incorrect?

 

[zippy2006]

But... You were supposed to be explaining to me the harm that comes from treating everything as the proper subject of humor. And you're telling me that the harm is causing yourself to believe that there's no harm that comes from treating everything as the proper subject of humor because that belief would be false. It's a bit circular, ya?

Okay, sure, but if we disagree on the root I'm not sure if we will agree on the consequences.

The consequences of that root error--the false beliefs and impressions that you could lead others into--are the specific categories and instances that humor is inappropriately applied to. So maybe someone is at the awards ceremony, hears your joke during the time that the person is being awarded the medal of honor, laughs, and comes to the conclusion that honor is subordinate to humor (and that jokes of this type are appropriate). Or they hear a joke about rape, or God, or Hell, and come to believe that any of those categories are subordinate to humor.

Although it is somewhat difficult to prescind from our objective/subjective difference, you can at least see some negative consequences. As more people are subjected to inappropriate humor, that kind of humor will multiply to the detriment of, say, the solemnity of awards ceremonies. At the limit all of life is just a joke or at least the appropriate subject of a joke.

If some topics are objectively offensive, then all other topics are not objectively offensive. That means that when someone feels offended at something not objectively offensive, they are feeling the incorrect emotions; and if someone remains stoic in the face of something that is objectively offensive, then they are feeling the incorrect emotions. That doesn't seem absurd to you?

No; why would it sound absurd? Emotions are not infallible or non-rational, they are just physiological extensions of rationality (and can, to that extent, be right or wrong). Once one understands that emotions are based on perceptions it is easier to see this, for if one's perceptions are accurate then one's emotions will be in accord with reality.

I could push this further, but it is really the common view. It is precisely why people who are deeply offended at one of your jokes believe there is something wrong with you. I suppose you would have to say more about where the absurdity is supposed to lie.

It's sort of akin to telling someone who was pricked by a needle that yelping in pain is the incorrect response. Or someone else is incorrect to not yelp. Some folks have a low threshold for pain, some folks like pain. Who is objectively correct?

Pain, sadness, pleasure, and joy are primary emotions and are therefore closer to infallible than things like fear or anger. There is often less intellectual coupling between the primary emotions and the response. Humor isn't like that. It is worth noting that to change one's emotions requires changing one's perceptions, and that does usually take time.

What makes it inappropriate?

It detracts from the purpose of the event: honoring someone for valiant deeds. Because it is obvious that it does detract from the event to one extent or another it becomes clear that the only way in which it would not be inappropriate is if awards ceremonies are themselves inappropriate. An awards ceremony is not a roast. They are mutually exclusive events because of the mutually exclusive nature of humor and honoring.

Again, you could probably make some small jokes about the recipient and get away with it. Small detraction might be okay, depending on the nature of the event, but it is still detraction. The essence of an awards ceremony is incompatible with the essence of humor at the recipient's expense. If you mix them they will only mix as oil and water does.

If Jeff Ross was to receive the medal of honor, I think it would be rude of the crowd to insist that it be a somber event when he wants a roast (and if you're familiar with Jeff Ross, you know he would).

But all you're saying is that he doesn't want an awards ceremony.

I believe that happiness is objectively valuable, and so is avoiding unhappiness. The rest is pretty much just juggling all the subjective stuff that comes flying our way. No topic for a joke is objectively offensive. Can you demonstrate that is incorrect?

If there are things that are incompatible with humor and those things are valuable then humor is objectively offensive when it undermines one of those things.

Edit: I am trying to think of a simple example. Suppose you are at an awards ceremony for Christian Schilt, who evacuated wounded Marines while under fire. You turn to your friend at your table, "Boy, he always was a teacher's pet!" Your friend laughs, but someone behind you overhears and is offended. Who's right?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Who's right?

Why should anyone be right? One person was offended; another was amused. That's it. That's the total; the end. There needn't be one final answer.

 

[Moral Orel]

The consequences of that root error--the false beliefs and impressions that you could lead others into--are the specific categories and instances that humor is inappropriately applied to. So maybe someone is at the awards ceremony, hears your joke during the time that the person is being awarded the medal of honor, laughs, and comes to the conclusion that honor is subordinate to humor (and that jokes of this type are appropriate). Or they hear a joke about rape, or God, or Hell, and come to believe that any of those categories are subordinate to humor.

Rape itself isn't subordinate to humor itself just because someone finds a rape joke funny. I laugh at rape jokes, that doesn't mean that I'll choose to walk into a comedy club before I stop a rape. I think you could say that rape as a topic of conversation is subordinate to the effects of humor, I guess, but that kind of loses any impact, doesn't it?

Although it is somewhat difficult to prescind from our objective/subjective difference, you can at least see some negative consequences. As more people are subjected to inappropriate humor, that kind of humor will multiply to the detriment of, say, the solemnity of awards ceremonies. At the limit all of life is just a joke or at least the appropriate subject of a joke.

Well, ya, any aspect of life is an appropriate subject of a joke depending on your audience. Imagine a world where no one ever was offended by any joke. What would be so bad about that?

Solemnity of awards ceremonies is a subjective value. Some people like their awards ceremonies to be entertaining too.

No; why would it sound absurd? Emotions are not infallible or non-rational, they are just physiological extensions of rationality (and can, to that extent, be right or wrong). Once one understands that emotions are based on perceptions it is easier to see this, for if one's perceptions are accurate then one's emotions will be in accord with reality.

Nope. People can have 100% accurate perceptions of something, understand it the exact same way, and still feel differently about it. There was a story in the news section a while back about a kid who made light of slavery to make a Promposal sign. Everyone understood that the kid was making a joke and wasn't advocating for re-enslaving blacks. Yet some folks felt offended that he did it, and some folks didn't care.

I could push this further, but it is really the common view. It is precisely why people who are deeply offended at one of your jokes believe there is something wrong with you. I suppose you would have to say more about where the absurdity is supposed to lie.

Oh I know full well that my view isn't popular, but that doesn't make it wrong, just like the fact that your view is popular doesn't make it right. Appealing to emotion is the most persuasive argument anyone can make, that's why everyone thinks that the things which offend them are special and objectively offensive.

Pain, sadness, pleasure, and joy are primary emotions and are therefore closer to infallible than things like fear or anger. There is often less intellectual coupling between the primary emotions and the response. Humor isn't like that. It is worth noting that to change one's emotions requires changing one's perceptions, and that does usually take time.

Well, that's kind of my point with the pin prick analogy. You say that pain is less fallible, yet different people still respond differently to the exact same stimulus which they all perceive exactly the same way.

It detracts from the purpose of the event: honoring someone for valiant deeds. Because it is obvious that it does detract from the event to one extent or another it becomes clear that the only way in which it would not be inappropriate is if awards ceremonies are themselves inappropriate. An awards ceremony is not a roast. They are mutually exclusive events because of the mutually exclusive nature of humor and honoring.

Again, you could probably make some small jokes about the recipient and get away with it. Small detraction might be okay, depending on the nature of the event, but it is still detraction. The essence of an awards ceremony is incompatible with the essence of humor at the recipient's expense. If you mix them they will only mix as oil and water does.

But all you're saying is that he doesn't want an awards ceremony.

Nope. The Academy Awards is an awards ceremony and it's filled with humor, often mean humor, and people love it. Even though a roast is mean and nasty at times, it's still honoring the roastee. People say terrible things, then they say something nice at the end, so that ultimately the roastee feels honored. Hand him a medal or plaque or something, and now it's an awards ceremony too.

If there are things that are incompatible with humor and those things are valuable then humor is objectively offensive when it undermines one of those things.

Edit: I am trying to think of a simple example. Suppose you are at an awards ceremony for Christian Schilt, who evacuated wounded Marines while under fire. You turn to your friend at your table, "Boy, he always was a teacher's pet!" Your friend laughs, but someone behind you overhears and is offended. Who's right?

I would agree that in that specific example folks shouldn't be cracking jokes. You went into the event expecting a somber affair, so you should expect other folks to be upset if you aren't conforming to the event. I tell my awful jokes at work, on break, outside in the smoking area where most employees frequent. Depending on who's out there, I don't tell some jokes.

Now there's two problems I see with how you're framing your thoughts here. First, the topic of rape isn't the same thing as rape itself; just using rape as an example, insert any other topic you would find objectively offensive. Much like how people distinguish between fantasy and reality while watching a movie or playing a video game, you can't compare acts depicted on a screen to real acts, just like you can't compare listening to a topic of a joke to witnessing the actual occurrence of that topic.

Secondly, you're arguing that giving someone an award should be a solemn affair, as though it is an objective fact. So you can't just give me one specific example where people are expecting that isolated event to be solemn. You've got the difficult case to make, I'm the one who gets to show one outlying scenario which makes awards ceremonies not inherently solemn. That's why I brought up Jeff Ross. I value the honoree's enjoyment of the affair more than I value the affair itself. You seem to see it backwards: that there is an objectively correct way to run an awards show, and the feelings of the honoree are subordinate to that.

 

[zippy2006]

Rape itself isn't subordinate to humor itself just because someone finds a rape joke funny. I laugh at rape jokes, that doesn't mean that I'll choose to walk into a comedy club before I stop a rape. I think you could say that rape as a topic of conversation is subordinate to the effects of humor, I guess, but that kind of loses any impact, doesn't it?

I don't really have time to parse the logical aspect in which my statement is true, but someone who does not tell rape jokes understands the rape-humor relation differently than someone who does, and the second person's understanding has a greater subordination of rape to humor.

The problem with your position, by the way, is that you are not admitting moderation of any kind. You are saying that no jokes are inappropriate (or "no types of jokes," as you like). That's a strange position, but counterexamples might get me banned from the forum.

Well, ya, any aspect of life is an appropriate subject of a joke depending on your audience. Imagine a world where no one ever was offended by any joke. What would be so bad about that?

That strikes me as absurd.

I mean... What are jokes? On your conception they are basically a subset of stories. Stories are value-laden, intellectually-contentful things. And it seems to me that, on your understanding, a joke is just a story told with the intention of creating humor. Someone could tell a terrible, terrible joke, and it would still be a joke as long as they intend it that way, right? So for all intents and purposes any (short) story could be a joke. Thus a world where no one was offended by any joke implies a world that accepts pure subjectivism, complete absence of communal values, and no intellectual integrity. ...lol. I realize that more argumentation might be needed here, but your comment is very surprising to me.

Nope. People can have 100% accurate perceptions of something, understand it the exact same way, and still feel differently about it. There was a story in the news section a while back about a kid who made light of slavery to make a Promposal sign. Everyone understood that the kid was making a joke and wasn't advocating for re-enslaving blacks. Yet some folks felt offended that he did it, and some folks didn't care.

The two groups inevitably have drastically different perceptions about humor, slavery, and intent just to name a few.

Oh I know full well that my view isn't popular, but that doesn't make it wrong, just like the fact that your view is popular doesn't make it right. Appealing to emotion is the most persuasive argument anyone can make, that's why everyone thinks that the things which offend them are special and objectively offensive.

Sorry, emotion is correlated to reality. Evolution helped us with that. When 99.9% of people are angry with you, there's a good chance you did something wrong.

Well, that's kind of my point with the pin prick analogy. You say that pain is less fallible, yet different people still respond differently to the exact same stimulus which they all perceive exactly the same way.

Pain isn't equated with a stimulus on any definition. Pain is a subjective perception. When one person feels more pain than another doctors don't jump to the conclusion that the stimulus is different (though this is often the case). There are physiological and neurological differences between people that can alter their perceptions of equal stimuli. If you could clone an exact replica of yourself you would both feel the same pain at the same stimulus. Pain is objective/infallible in that theoretical way. But I already admitted that our emotions are correlative, not infallible. Your argument doesn't prove otherwise.

Nope. The Academy Awards is an awards ceremony...

I wasn't talking about the Academy Awards, though. That's a long ways from the medal of honor.

I would agree that in that specific example folks shouldn't be cracking jokes. You went into the event expecting a somber affair, so you should expect other folks to be upset if you aren't conforming to the event.

Right, but extrapolate. If there are events that are incompatible with humor then there are topics/types that are incompatible with humor. The event is somber for a reason, and all somber things are incompatible with humor. If you try to mix humor and a somber topic it won't work.

Obviously this is a spectrum. Less somber things can be the subject of humor more than more somber things. Suppose you make light of a mildly somber topic via humor. 70% of the audience laughs, 20% does not laugh (but is not offended), and 10% are offended. Now you make light of a moderately somber topic via humor. 33% laugh; 34% don't; and 33% are offended. Now you make light of a extremely somber topic via humor. 5% laugh; 20% don't; and 75% are offended.

If you find that kind of scenario credible then you must admit that people's perceptions and emotions indicate a negative correlation between humor and somberness. Maybe people's perceptions and emotions are wrong, but you're the significant outlier here. I think it is obvious that the reason a somber event is incompatible with humor is because somberness is incompatible with humor. If you disagree then you must give a better reason why the somber event is incompatible with humor.

Now there's two problems I see with how you're framing your thoughts here. First, the topic of rape isn't the same thing as rape itself; just using rape as an example, insert any other topic you would find objectively offensive. Much like how people distinguish between fantasy and reality while watching a movie or playing a video game, you can't compare acts depicted on a screen to real acts, just like you can't compare listening to a topic of a joke to witnessing the actual occurrence of that topic.

Of course you can compare them. That's why people watch inappropriate contentography when they want to be sexually aroused. A symbol is a pointer to a reality. They aren't the same thing but they are related, able to be compared, and perfectly relevant to the topic at hand. The concept of Jesus' words in Matthew 5:21-28 isn't controversial. Laughing at a live rape is not the same thing as laughing at a video of a rape, and that is not the same as laughing at a pretend rape, and that is not the same as laughing at the idea of a rape, and that is not the same thing as laughing at an aspect of an idea of a rape, but they are all related.

Secondly, you're arguing that giving someone an award should be a solemn affair, as though it is an objective fact. So you can't just give me one specific example where people are expecting that isolated event to be solemn. You've got the difficult case to make, I'm the one who gets to show one outlying scenario which makes awards ceremonies not inherently solemn. That's why I brought up Jeff Ross. I value the honoree's enjoyment of the affair more than I value the affair itself. You seem to see it backwards: that there is an objectively correct way to run an awards show, and the feelings of the honoree are subordinate to that.

No, I argued that giving the medal of honor to someone who performed virtuous and life-threatening deeds is a solemn act. I never said that every awards ceremony is solemn. You gave the categorical statement; I'm giving the counterexample. Your categorical claimed that any type of joke is appropriate. Therefore I can be as specific and extreme as I like in crafting my counterexample.

 

[Moral Orel]

@zippy2006
I'm going to take a less than standard approach to your last post. Let me know if there was something I missed, but I'm not going to break it down into bite-sized quotes this time.

Rape jokes and actual rape are related to some extent, sure. But is it significant in any way? If laughing at rape jokes doesn't make you any more likely to rape or turn a blind eye to rape, then so what? In one context the topic of rape is subordinate to humor, and in another context humor is subordinate to actual rape. Without using precise language to describe exactly what you're speaking of, it's inaccurate to apply a blanket statement of "rape is subordinate to humor". All things are related in one way or another, simply stating that things are related isn't sufficient.

I stand by my position that any topic, including rape, is okay to tell a joke about. As a counterexample you offered up a situation that it isn't okay to joke in loosely tying in that the topic is the honoree's heroic deeds. I agree that somberness and humor don't mix, but you're arguing that some situations should be somber. I agree, but the determining factor is the audience and the honoree which is why it's all subjective. You never really addressed my Jeff Ross counterexample and instead tried to claim that it wouldn't be an award ceremony. That's why I brought up the Academy Awards. If Jeff Ross pulled a bunch of babies from a burning building, and someone offered to throw an event for him to honor that deed, he would insist on it being a roast. Why would it be an incorrect way to honor him by throwing the event that he wants?

In your example of the marine it should be somber if the marine wants it somber, and most people probably would. That doesn't mean they're correct. Most people like sugary snacks and evolution had a hand in that. That doesn't mean that chocolate ice cream is objectively tasty no matter how much I insist it is. If the event is advertised as somber, then it should stay somber. If Jeff Ross won an award no matter what for, it would be advertised as a roast. People would go into each event getting what they expected when they walked in the door. There are events that humor shouldn't be a part of, but that's because of the audience, not the topic. But hey, maybe that marine is a huge Jeff Ross fan, has all the Comedy Central Roasts on DVD, and would want a roast but wouldn't ask for one simply because he doesn't want to offend people. Would he be wrong for wanting what he wants?

Now, you brought up perceptions, and I sort of assumed you meant it in a Three's Company kind of way. Mr. Roper would have a limited amount of information that affected his perception that Jack was gay. But you responded that the folks I mentioned have different perceptions about humor, slavery, etc. Are any of them objectively correct, or are they just subjective perceptions? I'd use the word "opinions" in that instance, "perceptions" is misleading. Note though, that in my example there are not differing opinions on the intent, that was part of the point.

Jokes are stories, and some stories are just for entertainment value. Not all stories are "value-laden". A script for an episode of "Beavis and Butthead" is a story, and it is not value-laden. When you compartmentalize entertainment and other values, you can have a life where every well-crafted joke is funny and you still hate evil people doing evil things. Pure subjectivism in the context of being offended by words does not require a spill-over into real things. Are you trying to argue that I'm being logically inconsistent by being against actual rape and being for rape jokes?

Last points to wrap up... I used pain as an example because you said it's less fallible than emotions. If even the less fallible thing is subjective, how is the more fallible thing not subjective?

And I would love to hear your counterexamples of jokes that you think should never be uttered. PM me. I'll match you joke for joke if you like. I am always in the mood to swap jokes.

 

[zippy2006]

@zippy2006
I'm going to take a less than standard approach to your last post. Let me know if there was something I missed, but I'm not going to break it down into bite-sized quotes this time.

I appreciate your change of presentation, but for now I will continue to block-quote you. By the way, I found a fun string of jokes, here.

Rape jokes and actual rape are related to some extent, sure. But is it significant in any way? If laughing at rape jokes doesn't make you any more likely to rape or turn a blind eye to rape, then so what?

I would say that laughing at something implies at least partial condoning of that thing, and therefore laughing at a rape joke would make it more likely that you would turn a blind eye, etc.

In one context the topic of rape is subordinate to humor, and in another context humor is subordinate to actual rape.

True.

Without using precise language to describe exactly what you're speaking of, it's inaccurate to apply a blanket statement of "rape is subordinate to humor". All things are related in one way or another, simply stating that things are related isn't sufficient.

Sufficient for what? Someone who is willing to make jokes about rape is subordinating rape to humor more than someone who is not. That's what I was thinking.

I stand by my position that any topic, including rape, is okay to tell a joke about. As a counterexample you offered up a situation that it isn't okay to joke in loosely tying in that the topic is the honoree's heroic deeds.

What's the difference between a topic and a situation? Is it possible that situations can be off-limits to humor, but topics cannot? Finally, if some situations are problematic then some jokes are impermissible--namely the jokes that would be told in a particular situation.

I agree that somberness and humor don't mix, but you're arguing that some situations should be somber. I agree, but the determining factor is the audience and the honoree which is why it's all subjective.

No, certain events are of a certain nature regardless of the audience and honoree. An award ceremony for the medal of honor is always 'somber' regardless of the attendees.

You never really addressed my Jeff Ross counterexample and instead tried to claim that it wouldn't be an award ceremony. That's why I brought up the Academy Awards. If Jeff Ross pulled a bunch of babies from a burning building, and someone offered to throw an event for him to honor that deed, he would insist on it being a roast. Why would it be an incorrect way to honor him by throwing the event that he wants?

Would he? Joking about that act disrespects people who save babies and the value of babies themselves. It's not funny that babies are saved from death.

In your example of the marine it should be somber if the marine wants it somber, and most people probably would. That doesn't mean they're correct. Most people like sugary snacks and evolution had a hand in that. That doesn't mean that chocolate ice cream is objectively tasty no matter how much I insist it is.

Sugar is essential to human health, whether you like chocolate or vanilla.

People would go into each event getting what they expected when they walked in the door. There are events that humor shouldn't be a part of, but that's because of the audience, not the topic. But hey, maybe that marine is a huge Jeff Ross fan, has all the Comedy Central Roasts on DVD, and would want a roast but wouldn't ask for one simply because he doesn't want to offend people.

Humor involves a twist by definition. If people get exactly what they expect then there is no humor.

Would he be wrong for wanting what he wants?

Humor also involves context, so your point applies in some cases. I don't think it applies in the case of the medal of honor ceremony.

Now, you brought up perceptions, and I sort of assumed you meant it in a Three's Company kind of way. Mr. Roper would have a limited amount of information that affected his perception that Jack was gay. But you responded that the folks I mentioned have different perceptions about humor, slavery, etc. Are any of them objectively correct, or are they just subjective perceptions? I'd use the word "opinions" in that instance, "perceptions" is misleading. Note though, that in my example there are not differing opinions on the intent, that was part of the point.

Sorry, I don't know that show very well, but either Jack is gay or he is not, and the humor is stapled to that fact. Whether the person is fooled or not influences the humor...

Jokes are stories, and some stories are just for entertainment value.

Thank you. This is a great point that I sometimes miss.

Not all stories are "value-laden".

I don't agree with this. N.T. Wright writes on this topic in the context of cultural stories and myths, but I think his point applies here as well.

When you compartmentalize entertainment and other values, you can have a life where every well-crafted joke is funny and you still hate evil people doing evil things.

They can't be compartmentalized. That's a fundamental error of our culture. We think we can binge watch superhero movies and not come away acting like superheroes.

Pure subjectivism in the context of being offended by words does not require a spill-over into real things.

Thoughts and words are real things that refer to real things...

Are you trying to argue that I'm being logically inconsistent by being against actual rape and being for rape jokes?

I wouldn't call it logical inconsistency. I would call it a mis-alignment of your emotions and sense of humor with your sense of morality.

Last points to wrap up... I used pain as an example because you said it's less fallible than emotions. If even the less fallible thing is subjective, how is the more fallible thing not subjective?

Pain and fear occupy a place between objectivity and subjectivity. Objective things elicit them and yet we experience them subjectively.

And I would love to hear your counterexamples of jokes that you think should never be uttered. PM me. I'll match you joke for joke if you like. I am always in the mood to swap jokes.

I'm sure you are, but that would be immoral for me.

(This last sentence is an example of a joke that we can both laugh at for different reasons. I can laugh at myself because I do not know if my position is correct, and you can laugh at me because--in many cases--I do not mind being laughed at. Some jokes are funny for a variety of reasons. I like that kind of a joke.)

 

[Moral Orel]

I appreciate your change of presentation, but for now I will continue to block-quote you.

It took about a month for you to cook up a reply. I must be on to something if you have that much trouble trying to refute me

By the way, I found a fun string of jokes, here.

Loved those. I went to work and immediately told the meteor shower joke. When I tell people clean jokes it always throws them off, lol. My boss and a few of us were talking about allergies the other day, when I mentioned that I'm not allergic to anything, my boss quipped, "Maybe to clean jokes". So I said, "Did you hear that McDonald's is coming out with their own meatless burger, called the Beyond Burger? They had to delay the launch though because all the patties were stolen by the Yamburgler!"

I would say that laughing at something implies at least partial condoning of that thing, and therefore laughing at a rape joke would make it more likely that you would turn a blind eye, etc.

Yes, laughing at a rape joke is condoning rape jokes and makes you more likely to turn a blind eye to rape jokes. Now if I was saying that it's okay to laugh at an actual rape in progress, then that would be condoning actual rape, but that's clearly not what I'm saying. I think you meant that laughing at something that is related to something else condones that something else, but you see how that already starts to sound silly, right?

True.

Good.

Sufficient for what? Someone who is willing to make jokes about rape is subordinating rape to humor more than someone who is not. That's what I was thinking.

Wait... You just agreed that actual rape isn't subordinate to humor, only the topic of rape is subordinate to humor...

What's the difference between a topic and a situation? Is it possible that situations can be off-limits to humor, but topics cannot? Finally, if some situations are problematic then some jokes are impermissible--namely the jokes that would be told in a particular situation.

A topic is the thing you're talking about, the situation is where, when, and who you tell it to. Just because I wouldn't tell a Jewish joke inside of a Jewish Synagogue during church services doesn't mean that the joke should never be told.

No, certain events are of a certain nature regardless of the audience and honoree. An award ceremony for the medal of honor is always 'somber' regardless of the attendees.

I agree that medal of honor ceremonies have traditionally been somber, but you're trying to show me that they should be.

Would he? Joking about that act disrespects people who save babies and the value of babies themselves. It's not funny that babies are saved from death.

He would. He likes to say, "I only roast the ones I love". He had a little series on Netflix called "Historic Roasts" where he and his dais would dress up like folks from history and roast someone acting as some historical figure. He roasted Anne Frank and Gilbert Godfrey was there dressed in a Hitler Youth uniform. He's just as tasteless as I am. And I know that you and most folk don't think there's anything funny about saving babies, but there is a whole genre of jokes devoted to dead babies. Most of which rely on pure shock value as a crutch, but a few are actually clever.

Sugar is essential to human health, whether you like chocolate or vanilla.

I didn't say anything about human health, and I specifically avoided using a word as vague as "good". Chocolate ice cream is not objectively tasty.

Humor involves a twist by definition. If people get exactly what they expect then there is no humor.

That's like saying there's no such thing as a magic trick, because if people expect to be tricked, then it isn't a trick.

Thank you. This is a great point that I sometimes miss.

....Someone agreeing with me is so rare around here it always sounds like sarcasm. That wasn't sarcasm was it?

I don't agree with this. N.T. Wright writes on this topic in the context of cultural stories and myths, but I think his point applies here as well.

So then what sort or values do I derive from watching an episode of Beavis and Butthead? I mean, I value the entertainment, but I think you mean something more by "value-laden", right? I thought you just agreed that some stories are just for entertainment...

They can't be compartmentalized. That's a fundamental error of our culture. We think we can binge watch superhero movies and not come away acting like superheroes.

They can be compartmentalized, and I do compartmentalize them. We've been talking about rape jokes, but I've never witnessed an attempted rape. However, I tell spousal abuse jokes, and those should fall under the same sort of argument you've been making, ya? Here's another fun anecdote.

A long time ago, when the wife and I were still dating, I moved in with her and she was living with her sister and brother-in-law at the time. Their marriage was on the rocks, mostly because they're both awful people, so I had to watch them fight a lot. One night though, we're all at the house and her sister had a female friend over. The husband and wife get to screaming in the kitchen, I paid no mind because that was normal for them. Then the husband swept a bunch of pots and pans off of a counter top and screamed at her, "You want me to beat the [bleep] out of you right here?!" I hopped up off the couch and spun into the kitchen and stood in the door way, he saw me and shrank. I'm a big guy. 6'3", 300lbs. So he starts inching towards the stairs just saying, "You'll go to jail! You'll go to jail!". So I told him, "For what? No cop is going to arrest me after we all just saw you smack your wife!" And all the ladies got a big grin on their face. I shouted some more threatening obscenities and told him to go hide in his room, in as unkind of a manner as I could muster. I didn't see much of him after that, and he even stopped yelling with his wife. I wouldn't have even cared if they went back to their shouting matches, but I'm not going to let a fella hit a lady. He was too scared to even be on the same floor as me after that.

So you see, I can laugh at the topic of a guy punching his wife, and still take it very seriously when a guy even threatens to punch his wife. I didn't have to think about it, I didn't hesitate, for a big fatso, I'm pretty spry, and I was in that kitchen in a jiff.

I'd like to think I'd do the same in any situation. I can't say for certain I wouldn't turn into a coward if someone has a gun, but I've asserted myself physically in a lot of scenarios. I'm not afraid of people. And although I tell a lot of misogynistic jokes, I get extra perturbed when guys are mean to gals. They have a pretty rough existence from the time that they're little, so picking on them in anything but the most playful of ways is a big no-no in my book.

I know as far as evidence goes, anecdotes aren't all that strong, but I doubt there is any other kind of evidence about this scenario.

As far as emulating stories go though, I don't act like a superhero, and I keep up on all of them. I mostly enjoy kung-fu movies when I want to see an action flick, but I don't act like a martial arts super star... Well, one time, a long time ago in high school, I dropped acid and watched The Matrix, and afterwards I was practicing kung-fu moves in my bathroom mirror... But in general, no, I don't emulate the movies I watch. I watched Trainspotting and Requiem for a Dream, but I'm not a junkie; I watched all the Lethal Weapons, and all of the Rush Hours, but I'm not a cop; I watched A.I. and Ex Machina but I'm not a robot.

In what ways do you think I must emulate the movies or television I watch or the jokes I tell? I just see it as separating fantasy and reality.

Thoughts and words are real things that refer to real things...

Let me rephrase for precision. The abstract concepts that thoughts and words point to aren't the actual specific acts that occur.

I wouldn't call it logical inconsistency. I would call it a mis-alignment of your emotions and sense of humor with your sense of morality.

What's wrong with the way that its aligned, though? I get to laugh at any joke, and still take real acts very seriously. Sounds like the best way to be, honestly. I can act morally, enforce serious infractions of morals, and never get upset by words.

I'm sure you are, but that would be immoral for me.

(This last sentence is an example of a joke that we can both laugh at for different reasons. I can laugh at myself because I do not know if my position is correct, and you can laugh at me because--in many cases--I do not mind being laughed at. Some jokes are funny for a variety of reasons. I like that kind of a joke.)

The funniest part about it was that you phrased it like a moral relativist. What's immoral for you is moral for me, lol.

 

[Moral Orel]

@zippy2006 An addendum to my previous post. I thought of another great analogy.

When researchers were first studying behavioral psychology and conditioned responses, a group of psychologists plucked a kid out of an orphanage to experiment on. They wanted to create a negative response to something so that they could try to reverse it. So they took this kid, gave him a white, fluffy bunny, let him pet it for a bit, then scared the buh-jeepers out of him with a loud noise (I think it was a pair of cymbals, my memory on that is a little hazy). Sure enough, now this kid was terrified of white, fluffy bunnies because he associated them with the scary loud sound.

But that wasn't all. He was terrified of anything white and fluffy (like a man with a fake Santa beard on) because all white and fluffy things are related by that, even though it was only the bunny that actually had any real connection to the scary sound. Before they could try to fix him, he got adopted, and he went on to live the rest of his life terrified of bunnies, and Santa Claus. But they got another kid, and the experiment worked exactly the same. Only this time they figured out how to fix him. They brought in another child and then let the original kid pet him while the other child held the bunny.

See, actual rape and rape jokes are related by the way they make you feel, much in the same way bunnies and Santa are related by the way they made that poor kid feel. But they're very different things, and there's no good reason to feel the same way about both things. What if instead of a bunny it was a white, fluffy, snarling dog that scared him? It would be good for him to have a fear of snarling dogs, but he shouldn't keep the fear of Santa beards just because it's related to that dog via its whiteness and fluffiness.

 

[zippy2006]

It took about a month for you to cook up a reply. I must be on to something if you have that much trouble trying to refute me

Haha, not quite. There are a lot of factors, but the largest is that I just haven't spent much time on CF lately. I'm also not sure this conversation is going to resolve.

Loved those. I went to work and immediately told the meteor shower joke. When I tell people clean jokes it always throws them off, lol. My boss and a few of us were talking about allergies the other day, when I mentioned that I'm not allergic to anything, my boss quipped, "Maybe to clean jokes". So I said, "Did you hear that McDonald's is coming out with their own meatless burger, called the Beyond Burger? They had to delay the launch though because all the patties were stolen by the Yamburgler!"

Lol - I like that one.

Yes, laughing at a rape joke is condoning rape jokes and makes you more likely to turn a blind eye to rape jokes. Now if I was saying that it's okay to laugh at an actual rape in progress, then that would be condoning actual rape, but that's clearly not what I'm saying. I think you meant that laughing at something that is related to something else condones that something else, but you see how that already starts to sound silly, right?

No, I meant what I said. Laughing at something implies at least partial condoning of that thing.

Now "rape" is a verb with a meaning. That meaning is the same regardless of the reality of the sentence in which the word appears. Someone who is able to laugh at fictional rape is more likely to condone actual rape.

Good.

Wait... You just agreed that actual rape isn't subordinate to humor, only the topic of rape is subordinate to humor...

A non-rapist can make jokes about rape. That doesn't mean that the connection between laughing and condoning does not exist.

A topic is the thing you're talking about, the situation is where, when, and who you tell it to. Just because I wouldn't tell a Jewish joke inside of a Jewish Synagogue during church services doesn't mean that the joke should never be told.

Then you've again admitted that some jokes are (situationally) impermissible. I would be very much surprised to find that some jokes can be impermissible in certain situations but no joke can be impermissible in all situations...

I agree that medal of honor ceremonies have traditionally been somber, but you're trying to show me that they should be.

This is one of the reasons I am slow to continue our conversation. You put it to me to prove that ceremonies honoring medal of honor recipients should be somber affairs. It's like I reduced the argument to, "If your position is right, then 2+2 doesn't equal 4." You retort with, "You need to try to show me that 2+2 should equal 4!" Logic and reason has its limits. Some things cannot be proven to some people, not because they are unprovable, but because some people will not acknowledge bounding truths.

If you think that medal of honors awards cermonies are not meant to be somber affairs, then I don't know that there is much more to be said.

He would. He likes to say, "I only roast the ones I love". He had a little series on Netflix called "Historic Roasts" where he and his dais would dress up like folks from history and roast someone acting as some historical figure. He roasted Anne Frank and Gilbert Godfrey was there dressed in a Hitler Youth uniform. He's just as tasteless as I am. And I know that you and most folk don't think there's anything funny about saving babies, but there is a whole genre of jokes devoted to dead babies. Most of which rely on pure shock value as a crutch, but a few are actually clever.

Then tell me what is funny about saving a baby from death.

The nature of such a joke is as follows: there are two things, one is not funny and one is. If the funny thing outweighs the not-funny thing, laughter ensues. Shock value and cleverness can be funny, saving babies from dying is not. Often you see comedians mixing these things intentionally with political motives, e.g. those in favor of abortion. It's just rhetoric making use of humor.

....Someone agreeing with me is so rare around here it always sounds like sarcasm. That wasn't sarcasm was it?

No, lol.

So then what sort or values do I derive from watching an episode of Beavis and Butthead? I mean, I value the entertainment, but I think you mean something more by "value-laden", right? I thought you just agreed that some stories are just for entertainment...

Give me a clip of an episode. Humor requires intellect and understanding, so anything that is potentially humorous is also intellectually meaningful. Maybe it is too much to say that Beavis and Butthead is value-laden, but values are certainly present, and different people will react to the material very differently.

They can be compartmentalized, and I do compartmentalize them. We've been talking about rape jokes, but I've never witnessed an attempted rape. However, I tell spousal abuse jokes, and those should fall under the same sort of argument you've been making, ya? Here's another fun anecdote.

A long time ago, when the wife and I were still dating, I moved in with her and she was living with her sister and brother-in-law at the time. Their marriage was on the rocks, mostly because they're both awful people, so I had to watch them fight a lot. One night though, we're all at the house and her sister had a female friend over. The husband and wife get to screaming in the kitchen, I paid no mind because that was normal for them. Then the husband swept a bunch of pots and pans off of a counter top and screamed at her, "You want me to beat the [bleep] out of you right here?!" I hopped up off the couch and spun into the kitchen and stood in the door way, he saw me and shrank. I'm a big guy. 6'3", 300lbs. So he starts inching towards the stairs just saying, "You'll go to jail! You'll go to jail!". So I told him, "For what? No cop is going to arrest me after we all just saw you smack your wife!" And all the ladies got a big grin on their face. I shouted some more threatening obscenities and told him to go hide in his room, in as unkind of a manner as I could muster. I didn't see much of him after that, and he even stopped yelling with his wife. I wouldn't have even cared if they went back to their shouting matches, but I'm not going to let a fella hit a lady. He was too scared to even be on the same floor as me after that.

So you see, I can laugh at the topic of a guy punching his wife, and still take it very seriously when a guy even threatens to punch his wife. I didn't have to think about it, I didn't hesitate, for a big fatso, I'm pretty spry, and I was in that kitchen in a jiff.

I'd like to think I'd do the same in any situation. I can't say for certain I wouldn't turn into a coward if someone has a gun, but I've asserted myself physically in a lot of scenarios. I'm not afraid of people. And although I tell a lot of misogynistic jokes, I get extra perturbed when guys are mean to gals. They have a pretty rough existence from the time that they're little, so picking on them in anything but the most playful of ways is a big no-no in my book.

I know as far as evidence goes, anecdotes aren't all that strong, but I doubt there is any other kind of evidence about this scenario.

As far as emulating stories go though, I don't act like a superhero, and I keep up on all of them. I mostly enjoy kung-fu movies when I want to see an action flick, but I don't act like a martial arts super star... Well, one time, a long time ago in high school, I dropped acid and watched The Matrix, and afterwards I was practicing kung-fu moves in my bathroom mirror... But in general, no, I don't emulate the movies I watch. I watched Trainspotting and Requiem for a Dream, but I'm not a junkie; I watched all the Lethal Weapons, and all of the Rush Hours, but I'm not a cop; I watched A.I. and Ex Machina but I'm not a robot.

In what ways do you think I must emulate the movies or television I watch or the jokes I tell? I just see it as separating fantasy and reality.

Humans are great at irrational compartmentalization, I'll give you that. The fact is, a rape joke is arguably abuse towards women in itself. Granted, I am glad that you defend women. Let me try to illustrate how I view our conversation:

Zip: Rape jokes are immoral.
Orel: Rape is immoral. Jokes aren't rape.
Zip: Rape jokes are related to rape.
Orel: I can tell a rape joke without raping people.
Zip: When you laugh at something you (partially) condone it.
Orel: I laugh at rape jokes and I don't condone rape.
Zip: A person who laughs at rape jokes is more likely to condone rape than someone who doesn't.
Orel: I laugh at rape jokes and I protect women.

...My arguments aim to illustrate a principle, a spectrum, a relation, a connection, etc. Your counterarguments all miss the mark because they merely demonstrate a possibility. I grant that it is possible to tell rape jokes and not rape people. That's not the point. It's as if I make an argument that people who are underwater without air for 10 minutes are more likely to die than people who not underwater without air for 10 minutes. Then you tell me about Harry Houdini who once held his breath for 13 minutes.

Let me rephrase for precision. The abstract concepts that thoughts and words point to aren't the actual specific acts that occur.

It would be strange to find someone who isn't offended by the (abstract) concept of rape but is offended by an instance of rape. If that ever did happen we would probably conclude that their concept of rape was highly inaccurate.

What's wrong with the way that its aligned, though? I get to laugh at any joke, and still take real acts very seriously. Sounds like the best way to be, honestly. I can act morally, enforce serious infractions of morals, and never get upset by words.

To be quick, what happens when you see a woman being abused in precisely the way that your jokes depict? You inevitably enter into an internal conflict wherein you find the scenario funny and unacceptable.

But the cash out is that society will not trust you to judge rape cases because your relation with the abstract concept of rape is societally considered to be inappropriate.

The funniest part about it was that you phrased it like a moral relativist. What's immoral for you is moral for me, lol.

Well, conscience is a thing.

 

[zippy2006]

@zippy2006 An addendum to my previous post. I thought of another great analogy.

When researchers were first studying behavioral psychology and conditioned responses, a group of psychologists plucked a kid out of an orphanage to experiment on. They wanted to create a negative response to something so that they could try to reverse it. So they took this kid, gave him a white, fluffy bunny, let him pet it for a bit, then scared the buh-jeepers out of him with a loud noise (I think it was a pair of cymbals, my memory on that is a little hazy). Sure enough, now this kid was terrified of white, fluffy bunnies because he associated them with the scary loud sound.

But that wasn't all. He was terrified of anything white and fluffy (like a man with a fake Santa beard on) because all white and fluffy things are related by that, even though it was only the bunny that actually had any real connection to the scary sound. Before they could try to fix him, he got adopted, and he went on to live the rest of his life terrified of bunnies, and Santa Claus. But they got another kid, and the experiment worked exactly the same. Only this time they figured out how to fix him. They brought in another child and then let the original kid pet him while the other child held the bunny.

Sure, that makes sense to me. Interesting, though.

See, actual rape and rape jokes are related by the way they make you feel, much in the same way bunnies and Santa are related by the way they made that poor kid feel. But they're very different things, and there's no good reason to feel the same way about both things. What if instead of a bunny it was a white, fluffy, snarling dog that scared him? It would be good for him to have a fear of snarling dogs, but he shouldn't keep the fear of Santa beards just because it's related to that dog via its whiteness and fluffiness.

Jokes are not based on conditioned sensations, they are based on intellectual perceptions. The primary similarity between rape and rape jokes is rape, the word-concept they both have in common. Rape is an evil act which the moral person abhors. He abhors rape, he abhors the condoning of rape, and he abhors the idea of laughing at rape or making rape the subject of a joke.

He also, in time, comes to associate negative feelings with the idea of rape, much the same way a child ought to associate negative feelings with the phantasm of a snarling dog. We spoke briefly about feelings and their role as a truth-indicator, but they are not the primary consideration when it comes to humor and intellection.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, I meant what I said. Laughing at something implies at least partial condoning of that thing.

It doesn't. When I tell a rape joke or laugh at a rape joke I'm not implying that rape is okay.

Now "rape" is a verb with a meaning. That meaning is the same regardless of the reality of the sentence in which the word appears. Someone who is able to laugh at fictional rape is more likely to condone actual rape.

That may well be the case. A person who rapes is likely to laugh at rape jokes. But unless laughing at rape jokes causes you to condone rape, I don't see the harm. Most correlations people can find don't mean anything. There's a correlation between ice cream sales and drowning too, that doesn't mean eating ice cream has some effect on people drowning.

Then you've again admitted that some jokes are (situationally) impermissible. I would be very much surprised to find that some jokes can be impermissible in certain situations but no joke can be impermissible in all situations...

Let's say Anthony Jeselnik and I sit down to swap jokes all by ourselves with no one else around. What joke should be impermissible? What joke is going to cause anyone harm in that scenario?

This is one of the reasons I am slow to continue our conversation. You put it to me to prove that ceremonies honoring medal of honor recipients should be somber affairs. It's like I reduced the argument to, "If your position is right, then 2+2 doesn't equal 4." You retort with, "You need to try to show me that 2+2 should equal 4!" Logic and reason has its limits. Some things cannot be proven to some people, not because they are unprovable, but because some people will not acknowledge bounding truths.

If you think that medal of honors awards cermonies are not meant to be somber affairs, then I don't know that there is much more to be said.

But... that was your claim. I didn't turn anything around, you said that those ceremonies should be devoid of humor, so I asked you to support it. If you can't demonstrate that it should, then it's probably just a feeling you have. If you can't use logic and reason to support such a claim, then you're expecting me to accept your argument axiomatically.

Then tell me what is funny about saving a baby from death.

Okay... This might shut down the thread though, so I'll put it inside a spoiler. Anybody reading this that is ever offended by jokes shouldn't read the following:

Spoiler: Offensive humor

I think it's funny how things that happen to us as kids stay with us our whole lives. My little niece almost drowned when she was three and to this day she still won't come anywhere near me, even ten years later. See, I was babysitting and trying to do laundry and she fell in the washer. I thought I was quick enough that nobody would find out what happened... but that whole load turned pink.

I don't know if you'll actually read that, I bet you won't find it funny if you do, but it still follows the structure of a joke and the surprise is what makes it funny. What makes it unfunny to some is the emotional response to the thought of what happened to a fictional baby. When that emotional response overpowers the emotional response of being surprised in comedic fashion, folks say, "that isn't funny". When the emotional response of being surprised in comedic fashion outweighs the emotional response to the thought of what happened to a fictional baby, those folks say, "...ya it is."

Give me a clip of an episode. Humor requires intellect and understanding, so anything that is potentially humorous is also intellectually meaningful. Maybe it is too much to say that Beavis and Butthead is value-laden, but values are certainly present, and different people will react to the material very differently.

That joke I posted is pushing the envelope pretty hard. You want me to post a clip of Beavis and Butthead on ChristianForums.com?!

Humans are great at irrational compartmentalization, I'll give you that. The fact is, a rape joke is arguably abuse towards women in itself.

You could try to argue that, and if you could show that it is in fact abuse toward women that would demonstrate some harm to support a claim that it's immoral to tell such jokes.

Granted, I am glad that you defend women. Let me try to illustrate how I view our conversation:

Zip: Rape jokes are immoral.
Orel: Rape is immoral. Jokes aren't rape.
Zip: Rape jokes are related to rape.
Orel: I can tell a rape joke without raping people.
Zip: When you laugh at something you (partially) condone it.
Orel: I laugh at rape jokes and I don't condone rape.
Zip: A person who laughs at rape jokes is more likely to condone rape than someone who doesn't.
Orel: I laugh at rape jokes and I protect women.

...My arguments aim to illustrate a principle, a spectrum, a relation, a connection, etc. Your counterarguments all miss the mark because they merely demonstrate a possibility. I grant that it is possible to tell rape jokes and not rape people. That's not the point. It's as if I make an argument that people who are underwater without air for 10 minutes are more likely to die than people who not underwater without air for 10 minutes. Then you tell me about Harry Houdini who once held his breath for 13 minutes.

No, not a "possibility", an actual exception. If actual exceptions exist, and they do, then the connection you see between jokes and actual events isn't the bad thing, something else is.

It would be strange to find someone who isn't offended by the (abstract) concept of rape but is offended by an instance of rape. If that ever did happen we would probably conclude that their concept of rape was highly inaccurate.

You're talking to one, and it isn't that strange to find folks who will laugh at a joke about rape or any manner of deplorable thing. We're in the minority for sure, but it isn't strange by a long shot. That's what laughing at these jokes is, laughing at the abstract concept of something.

To be quick, what happens when you see a woman being abused in precisely the way that your jokes depict? You inevitably enter into an internal conflict wherein you find the scenario funny and unacceptable.

Nope. Not inevitably. I didn't find my ex-brother-in-law's threat funny. I only found it funny when he shrunk so quickly at the sight of me. See, you can't say that you've been talking about likelihoods and then turn around and use a word like "inevitably".

Jokes are not based on conditioned sensations

They aren't, but offense to specific topics is. A lot of blonde jokes are interchangeable with Polish jokes. For example, the classic:

Q. How many Polaks does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A. Eleven. One to hold the lightbulb, ten to turn the ladder.

Works exactly the same if you swap "Polaks" for "blondes".

Q. How many blondes does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A. Eleven. One to hold the lightbulb, ten to turn the ladder.

If I tell the former to a blonde, she won't care. If I tell her the latter, there's a good chance she'll be offended. The way the joke functions didn't change, just the subject matter. But why? It isn't because it's wrong to generalize a group of people as having a low intellect. It's because that blonde has a conditioned response to people doing that to her.

You could almost say the same thing about telling that joke to a Polak, but we're all usually too dumb to get the jokes. I get to say that because I'm Polish.

Case in point, another fun anecdote. One of the office girls heard me telling some slightly offensive jokes a long while back, and wanted to get in on the fun. She, like I mentioned before folk are apt to do, challenged me to tell her any kind of offensive joke. I played it smart this time though, and I told her I'd work my way up to the really dark stuff, desensitizing her along the way. We both smoke, so we run into each other outside a lot on our breaks.

I started out with my mean jokes about how crappy I treat my wife or stories about ex-girlfriends and such. I've told jokes about rape, murder, national tragedies, etc. Oddly enough, I hadn't told any blonde jokes. She dies her hair blonde, but I didn't think anything of it. All the other monstrous things I've said were met with exclamations for sure: "Oh my!" "You're ridiculous" and various swear words (she has a specific penchant for taking Jesus' name in vain). But when I told her one single blonde joke, for the first time she called me a... You remember my real first name? It rhymes with the short version of that, lol.

Rape jokes carry that negative conditioned response more commonly because actual rape has affected more people and in a much more serious way than specific stereotypes. There just aren't that many blondes or Poles. But rape affects basically all women and any men that care about any women. So yeah, it's generally a bad idea to tell those jokes to people you don't know really well because more likely than not someone is going to get upset, but people get upset irrationally because of conditioning. It's all from what you said here:

He also, in time, comes to associate negative feelings with the idea of rape

Not from thinking about the ways that the telling of a joke causes harm itself.

 

[zippy2006]

It doesn't. When I tell a rape joke or laugh at a rape joke I'm not implying that rape is okay.

That may well be the case. A person who rapes is likely to laugh at rape jokes. But unless laughing at rape jokes causes you to condone rape, I don't see the harm. Most correlations people can find don't mean anything. There's a correlation between ice cream sales and drowning too, that doesn't mean eating ice cream has some effect on people drowning.

I'm not planning on entering into further argument on this point. If you do not see the connection between laughing at a subject and condoning a subject by now, I don't think you will.

Let's say Anthony Jeselnik and I sit down to swap jokes all by ourselves with no one else around. What joke should be impermissible? What joke is going to cause anyone harm in that scenario?

I spoke of the subjectivity approach here. There is such a thing as wrong speech or wrong thought, and it is immoral. You can sit in your room fantasizing about raping people, and according to your understanding it isn't going to "cause anyone harm." Again, we've covered this topic in some detail, and I don't see it going very far. If you like you could start a new thread on the topic of whether things done in private--by yourself--can be immoral.

But... that was your claim. I didn't turn anything around, you said that those ceremonies should be devoid of humor, so I asked you to support it.

It was not a claim, it was the reductio of a long argument.

If you can't demonstrate that it should, then it's probably just a feeling you have. If you can't use logic and reason to support such a claim, then you're expecting me to accept your argument axiomatically.

I realize you've probably never formally studied logic, but a reductio and an assertion are very different. Again, if you think ceremonies awarding the medal of honor are not meant to be somber affairs, then go your way. I cannot help but see it as sophism.

Okay... This might shut down the thread though, so I'll put it inside a spoiler. Anybody reading this that is ever offended by jokes shouldn't read the following:

Spoiler: Offensive humor

I think it's funny how things that happen to us as kids stay with us our whole lives. My little niece almost drowned when she was three and to this day she still won't come anywhere near me, even ten years later. See, I was babysitting and trying to do laundry and she fell in the washer. I thought I was quick enough that nobody would find out what happened... but that whole load turned pink.

I don't know if you'll actually read that, I bet you won't find it funny if you do, but it still follows the structure of a joke and the surprise is what makes it funny. What makes it unfunny to some is the emotional response to the thought of what happened to a fictional baby. When that emotional response overpowers the emotional response of being surprised in comedic fashion, folks say, "that isn't funny". When the emotional response of being surprised in comedic fashion outweighs the emotional response to the thought of what happened to a fictional baby, those folks say, "...ya it is."

I don't find the joke problematic... It is as I said earlier: two aspects. It is funny that the babysitter made an overt mistake and couldn't cover it up. The intellectual structure of the joke doesn't cause one to laugh at the act of saving a baby from death.

In this case the object of humor isn't "saving babies from death." It is rather something like "mistakes babysitters make." In the case of a medal of honor ceremony being given for a man who has saved babies from imminent death, a central topic of the event is "saving babies from death." At such an event that topic is meant to be honored, not laughed at. Thus if you did tell a joke that actually made light of / laughed at saving babies from death, it would be unfunny and inappropriate in that context.

Finally, you again misunderstand emotional responses. People aren't concerned about babies who are injured in washing machines because they have emotional hangups. They are concerned because they are rational people who value the welfare of babies. Reducing such a response to a mere "emotional response" is very rationally sloppy.

That joke I posted is pushing the envelope pretty hard. You want me to post a clip of Beavis and Butthead on ChristianForums.com?!

...hey, if there are no implicated values in Beavis and Butthead, then how could anyone be offended!?

You could try to argue that, and if you could show that it is in fact abuse toward women that would demonstrate some harm to support a claim that it's immoral to tell such jokes.

If the joke does not ask the listener to laugh at fictional rape, then it may not be abuse towards women. Perhaps it could be like your spoiler joke above.

A more general problem, though, is that jokes invite a congenial attitude and an aura of humor and lightheartedness. That "aura" will influence any topic included in the joke--even if only subtly.

This could be illustrated by an extension of that principle wherein the broader social dynamics are influenced by jokes and joke-telling. Suppose you are at lunch and everyone is taking turns telling jokes. It is a fun, risible, and fairly light-hearted environment. Then one of your co-workers suddenly and somberly states, "My wife was raped and beaten when she was in high-school." Such a statement is incommensurate with the "aura" of joke-telling and laughter. It is, among other things, an inappropriate social blunder, a 'downer,' and a hostess' nightmare. Granted, maybe your friend needs to talk about what happened, but he picked a bad time. Your friend's statement is not funny. Jokes and not-funny things don't mix.

No, not a "possibility", an actual exception. If actual exceptions exist, and they do, then the connection you see between jokes and actual events isn't the bad thing, something else is.

Rules have exceptions and trends have outliers, but the technical problem is that your counterexamples aren't exceptions. They don't fulfill the criterion of "contradictory."

In order to contradict you would have to give an example of someone laughing at a subject while not partially condoning or "making light" of that subject.

You're talking to one, and it isn't that strange to find folks who will laugh at a joke about rape or any manner of deplorable thing. We're in the minority for sure, but it isn't strange by a long shot. That's what laughing at these jokes is, laughing at the abstract concept of something.

Then tell me why rape is offensive and the idea of rape is not offensive.

Nope. Not inevitably. I didn't find my ex-brother-in-law's threat funny.

If it perfectly mimicked your rape jokes you would find it funny, at least to a small extent.

They aren't, but offense to specific topics is. A lot of blonde jokes are interchangeable with Polish jokes. For example, the classic:

Some offense is merely emotional, but not all offense is merely emotional. That's your mistake. People can, and do, take intellectual offense at things, including jokes. Indeed any legitimate emotional offense is grounded in intellectual offense.

Q. How many Polaks does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A. Eleven. One to hold the lightbulb, ten to turn the ladder.

Works exactly the same if you swap "Polaks" for "blondes".

Q. How many blondes does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A. Eleven. One to hold the lightbulb, ten to turn the ladder.

If I tell the former to a blonde, she won't care. If I tell her the latter, there's a good chance she'll be offended. The way the joke functions didn't change, just the subject matter. But why? It isn't because it's wrong to generalize a group of people as having a low intellect. It's because that blonde has a conditioned response to people doing that to her.

You could almost say the same thing about telling that joke to a Polak, but we're all usually too dumb to get the jokes. I get to say that because I'm Polish.

Ha. I am very Polish and I like blonde jokes, so this was a good presentation. I don't want to open another tangent, so I won't say much. ...just that humans are more sensitive to personal insult than general insult, and that it is possible to object on grounds of generalization of stupidity. I have no problem with these jokes, though. As I said earlier, I like jokes that accentuate humility.

Case in point, another fun anecdote. One of the office girls heard me telling some slightly offensive jokes a long while back, and wanted to get in on the fun. She, like I mentioned before folk are apt to do, challenged me to tell her any kind of offensive joke. I played it smart this time though, and I told her I'd work my way up to the really dark stuff, desensitizing her along the way. We both smoke, so we run into each other outside a lot on our breaks.

I started out with my mean jokes about how crappy I treat my wife or stories about ex-girlfriends and such. I've told jokes about rape, murder, national tragedies, etc. Oddly enough, I hadn't told any blonde jokes. She dies her hair blonde, but I didn't think anything of it. All the other monstrous things I've said were met with exclamations for sure: "Oh my!" "You're ridiculous" and various swear words (she has a specific penchant for taking Jesus' name in vain). But when I told her one single blonde joke, for the first time she called me a... You remember my real first name? It rhymes with the short version of that, lol.

Haha. 'Innocent me' first surmised, "dick," but I think it had more in common with a needle?

I've offended girls in similar ways, too. I once stirred up a whole bee's nest of them at a swimming pool with an innocent quip about one's diving ability. I was really taken aback.

Rape jokes carry that negative conditioned response more commonly because actual rape has affected more people and in a much more serious way than specific stereotypes. There just aren't that many blondes or Poles. But rape affects basically all women and any men that care about any women. So yeah, it's generally a bad idea to tell those jokes to people you don't know really well because more likely than not someone is going to get upset, but people get upset irrationally because of conditioning. It's all from what you said here:

I would say that even people who haven't experienced the reality have cause to be offended.

Not from thinking about the ways that the telling of a joke causes harm itself.

Your broader idea that words are necessarily innocuous is rather strange. If the NYT runs a slanderous article on you, is that innocuous? (Many examples could be given of words causing damage or being inappropriate)

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't find the joke problematic...

You asked me to tell you what's funny about saving babies from death, and I told a story about a child that was traumatized for life because she almost drowned as a baby, and was so seriously injured as to bleed profusely, all the while in the care of the narrator (myself) who was more concerned with the condition of my laundry than the well-being of the baby I was tasked with protecting. And you don't see a problem with making light of all of that.

The same thing happened before when you said that Hell shouldn't be treated lightly. I gave you an example of a Hell joke that met your criteria, and that wasn't a problem either.

I'm wondering if you would even think there was a problem with an example of an actual rape joke. Maybe you're arguing against a type of joke that doesn't actually exist. If you don't see a problem with making light of a three year old being seriously injured by a sociopathic babysitter, then I don't know how you could have a problem with any rape joke I know. Well, maybe The Aristocrats, but I hardly think that qualifies as a "joke" myself, and it varies from teller to teller.

Ha. I am very Polish and I like blonde jokes, so this was a good presentation. I don't want to open another tangent, so I won't say much. ...just that humans are more sensitive to personal insult than general insult, and that it is possible to object on grounds of generalization of stupidity. I have no problem with these jokes, though. As I said earlier, I like jokes that accentuate humility.

Then you condone belittling ethnicities based on false stereotypes. By laughing at my joke you're making it more likely that you'll mock people in the future or at least turn a blind eye when you see someone being ridiculed. Even if you do step up and say something about a person insulting someone else, you'll inevitably find a person being hurt by those words funny.

Now sure, calling someone stupid doesn't cause an equivalent amount of harm that raping them would, but I think I've faithfully adapted your assertions. Your reasoning works for anything that causes harm in a different context. After all, telling a Polish joke is related to bullying, and bullying should never be treated lightly, so telling Polish jokes is bad.

So do you condone bullying, or do you compartmentalize telling jokes from actual bullying?

 

[zippy2006]

You asked me to tell you what's funny about saving babies from death, and I told a story about a child that was traumatized for life because she almost drowned as a baby, and was so seriously injured as to bleed profusely, all the while in the care of the narrator (myself) who was more concerned with the condition of my laundry than the well-being of the baby I was tasked with protecting. And you don't see a problem with making light of all of that.

Er.. Jokes involve exaggeration and hyperbole. What I got was that a baby fell into a washing machine and lost some blood before you scooped them out. There was no real danger of drowning with you standing there, and the whole context regarding drowning and fear reads like hyperbole.

The same thing happened before when you said that Hell shouldn't be treated lightly. I gave you an example of a Hell joke that met your criteria, and that wasn't a problem either.

I've mentioned multiple times that this is a difficult conversation because humor is a complicated topic and the analytical precision required to dissect it is uncommon.

For example, you gave an example of a joke that did not make light of Hell per se, and another joke which did not cause laughter at the idea of saving babies. No one would listen to your joke and respond, "Oh, I get it! That's funny because it's funny to try to save babies from dying!"

You've claimed that no joke is absolutely impermissible. Given our situation here, I guess I would say that there is a strong overlap between 'impermissible' jokes and jokes that simply aren't funny. For example, no one makes jokes that try to get people to laugh at the idea of saving a baby from death, because the idea of saving a baby from death is not funny. You don't make those jokes either, and it's not that you see them as impermissible, but simply that you see them as not funny. No one--including you--would laugh, so you don't tell the joke. Here's a point where I would challenge you, though: you ought to ask yourself why certain jokes aren't funny. There are multiple possible reasons, but I propose that one reason is that such a joke is impermissible or inappropriate.

I'm wondering if you would even think there was a problem with an example of an actual rape joke. Maybe you're arguing against a type of joke that doesn't actually exist. If you don't see a problem with making light of a three year old being seriously injured by a sociopathic babysitter, then I don't know how you could have a problem with any rape joke I know. Well, maybe The Aristocrats, but I hardly think that qualifies as a "joke" myself, and it varies from teller to teller.

Lol. Hopefully the above sheds some light.

Then you condone belittling ethnicities based on false stereotypes. By laughing at my joke you're making it more likely that you'll mock people in the future or at least turn a blind eye when you see someone being ridiculed. Even if you do step up and say something about a person insulting someone else, you'll inevitably find a person being hurt by those words funny.

In a word: yes.

The fact of the matter is that I find the proportion of "moral damage" to my psyche compared to the fruit of the joke acceptable, so to speak. (I realize this is a strange way of speaking, but we are having an obscure conversation.) Further, the joke implies that Polish people are dumb, or thick-headed, a claim which has some purchase on the ethnicity, in my Polish opinion. Finally, a Polish joke or a blonde joke often functions as a foil or exposing of the stereotype itself, where the stereotype becomes the object of humor for blondes and brunettes alike.

Thus the intellectual conclusion(s) of those who partake in a joke can be manifold, and the intent and reception can vary in subtle ways. Yet again, a joke which intends to get someone to laugh at rape is an evil joke, because rape ought not be laughed at. Similarly, if your joke was intended to get me to partake in demeaning Polish people, it was an evil joke. Finally, if you tell the joke without that "intent," but everyone at lunch receives the joke in such a way that they laugh excessively and demean Polish people, then the joke had an evil effect (among other effects).

Now sure, calling someone stupid doesn't cause an equivalent amount of harm that raping them would, but I think I've faithfully adapted your assertions. Your reasoning works for anything that causes harm in a different context. After all, telling a Polish joke is related to bullying, and bullying should never be treated lightly, so telling Polish jokes is bad.

The equivalent prohibition would be, "Telling jokes that demean Polish people is bad." Above I unpacked a bit of what this means. Whether your joke does that is debatable, but some Polish jokes do that, and if they do that, they are bad. The other prohibition was, "Laughing at rape is bad," or, correlatively, "Telling jokes with the aim of getting others to laugh at rape is bad."

 

[Moral Orel]

I've mentioned multiple times that this is a difficult conversation because humor is a complicated topic and the analytical precision required to dissect it is uncommon.

For example, you gave an example of a joke that did not make light of Hell per se, and another joke which did not cause laughter at the idea of saving babies. No one would listen to your joke and respond, "Oh, I get it! That's funny because it's funny to try to save babies from dying!"

You've claimed that no joke is absolutely impermissible. Given our situation here, I guess I would say that there is a strong overlap between 'impermissible' jokes and jokes that simply aren't funny. For example, no one makes jokes that try to get people to laugh at the idea of saving a baby from death, because the idea of saving a baby from death is not funny. You don't make those jokes either, and it's not that you see them as impermissible, but simply that you see them as not funny. No one--including you--would laugh, so you don't tell the joke. Here's a point where I would challenge you, though: you ought to ask yourself why certain jokes aren't funny. There are multiple possible reasons, but I propose that one reason is that such a joke is impermissible or inappropriate.

You said that some subjects shouldn't be treated lightly. I treated saving a baby from death lightly, but because you can point to something else as the "object" of that humor it's okay. I have jokes with all manner of disgusting imagery. The sort of jokes you must be imagining don't exist not because the topics are impermissible, but because structuring a joke properly to create comedic effect precludes doing it in the specific way you're describing.

At this point, I would have to actually try to offend you to see if there even is a joke that works as a joke and is impermissible. I think the above example is sufficient to make the point, so if there is such a joke I think it's on you to post one. Well, you'd have to PM me. Have you ever heard a joke that actually fits your criteria as impermissible and actually functions as a joke?

The equivalent prohibition would be, "Telling jokes that demean Polish people is bad." Above I unpacked a bit of what this means. Whether your joke does that is debatable, but some Polish jokes do that, and if they do that, they are bad. The other prohibition was, "Laughing at rape is bad," or, correlatively, "Telling jokes with the aim of getting others to laugh at rape is bad."

No, since we were already talking about Polish jokes and blonde jokes, the prohibition is already broader than "Polish people". Racist jokes, sexist jokes, ageist jokes, homophobic jokes, etc. Any joke that demeans any group of people is something you condone if you condone jokes that call people stupid. My joke does that.

Now, when someone laughs at a rape joke, they're laughing about a situation that involves a fictional rape. When you laugh at a Polish joke you are laughing at a person actually insulting other people, sometimes not to their face. Your laughter is more directly pointed at the actual act than a person who laughs at a rape joke. If laughing at rape jokes makes a person more likely to turn a blind eye to actual rape, then laughing at jokes that insult people definitely makes it more likely for you to turn a blind eye to bullying.

And just to keep things light, here's a blonde joke that blondes love:

Spoiler: Why were blonde jokes invented?

So that redheads and brunettes would have something to do on a Saturday night!

Lately I've heard the PC Police saying that blonde jokes are actually misogynist jokes. So there's that.

 

[zippy2006]

You said that some subjects shouldn't be treated lightly. I treated saving a baby from death lightly, but because you can point to something else as the "object" of that humor it's okay.

You can always test it. After telling that joke poll your audience, "What was the subject of that joke?" See how many people say, "Saving babies from death."

At this point, I would have to actually try to offend you to see if there even is a joke that works as a joke and is impermissible. I think the above example is sufficient to make the point, so if there is such a joke I think it's on you to post one. Well, you'd have to PM me. Have you ever heard a joke that actually fits your criteria as impermissible and actually functions as a joke?

What does it mean to "function as a joke"? I've heard people tell terrible, inappropriate jokes that no one laughed at. I suppose in that case it didn't "function as a joke"?

I mean, there are presumably people in existence who think rape is funny and make jokes on that basis.

No, since we were already talking about Polish jokes and blonde jokes, the prohibition is already broader than "Polish people". Racist jokes, sexist jokes, ageist jokes, homophobic jokes, etc. Any joke that demeans any group of people is something you condone if you condone jokes that call people stupid. My joke does that.

I gave my opinion on this topic in the last. What I said about Poles can be extended to blondes, etc.

Now, when someone laughs at a rape joke, they're laughing about a situation that involves a fictional rape. When you laugh at a Polish joke you are laughing at a person actually insulting other people, sometimes not to their face. Your laughter is more directly pointed at the actual act than a person who laughs at a rape joke. If laughing at rape jokes makes a person more likely to turn a blind eye to actual rape, then laughing at jokes that insult people definitely makes it more likely for you to turn a blind eye to bullying.

Didn't I already admit this in my last? After which I spoke about proportion?

There is a possible bad intent and effect of Polish jokes. I did not deny that.

And just to keep things light, here's a blonde joke that blondes love:

Spoiler: Why were blonde jokes invented?

So that redheads and brunettes would have something to do on a Saturday night!

Haha

 

[Moral Orel]

You can always test it. After telling that joke poll your audience, "What was the subject of that joke?" See how many people say, "Saving babies from death."

I'm not really disagreeing about what the subject of the joke is. That line of jokes, with myself as the narrator, makes my villainous nature the subject of the joke, in my opinion. What I'm questioning though is whether I made light of saving babies from death even if that wasn't the object of humor. I can craft a joke involving any terrible thing to make light of it, but do it in such a way that my villainy is the subject, and then it's okay? Because if so... Man, I've got a whole bunch of messed-up jokes that you're just going to love!

What does it mean to "function as a joke"? I've heard people tell terrible, inappropriate jokes that no one laughed at. I suppose in that case it didn't "function as a joke"?

I mean, there are presumably people in existence who think rape is funny and make jokes on that basis.

Functioning as a joke, like we talked about a long time ago. A set up that conceals a truth, followed by the punchline that reveals that truth. Based on your criteria, I think the only way to craft such an impermissible joke would be to simply describe a brutal rape and then say, "That's funny, right?" That isn't even how shock humor works though, so I don't understand how I could tell a joke that is problematic. And if I can't tell a joke that is problematic, then I think we're arguing over phantasms.

What do you mean to "make light of" something, if I didn't just make light of child abuse?

Didn't I already admit this in my last? After which I spoke about proportion?

There is a possible bad intent and effect of Polish jokes. I did not deny that.

Isn't the effect "inevitable" and not just "possible"? When you mentioned your "moral psyche" were you saying that the benefit of you getting to laugh is worth the risk of you laughing at actual bullying? We're a lot more likely to encounter actual bullying than we are to encounter actual rape. And bullying we encounter is going to resemble the jokes much more directly than a joke involving rape. So is it just a utilitarian thing, that rape scores so many more suffering points than insults do?

I think if you see someone being insulted all you're going to see is them being hurt; you're not going to be thinking about the jokes you've heard before. I believe you've successfully compartmentalized those things because they don't carry the intense emotional baggage that rape does.