posted
I don't find it outrageously offensive, just a bit too tediously predictable to trip my humor buttons. However, I wouldn't say it is a joke that makes equal butts of both parties; rather, it seems to me that the Republican party is presented as offering the average, typical, sensible, undramatic salutation. The normal Joes, as it were.
That's why the Republican greeting is offered second -- it's the contrast of the prosaic that provides the punchline to the prior overwrought, absurdly rambling message.
Nonetheless, it's just a joke. I prefer the cool bite of George Will's humor, but I'm more than willing to chalk that up to personal taste. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it annoys me most because it's one of those internet memes of the sort that used to get falsely attributed to George Carlin. Someone would write something like this in "Carlinesque" style and send it out, and it would eventually pick up Carlin's name somewhere along the way, even though it was never anything he'd be likely to say or put his name to.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I didn't really say that it made equal butts of both parties, just that it poked fun at both. (As someone already mentioned, the oversensitive politically correct pansy Democrat contrasted with the inter-culturally clueless provincial Republican)
As a similar example, Douglas Adams pokes fun at both atheists and theists, but he definitely takes many more shots at the latter. Since he doesn't explicitly go after the latter exclusively and he doesn't mean malice, I don't think that latter should be offended.
A reversed dynamic is at work here, clearly the joke is unbalanced, but I don't think people should take offense (then can, if they wish, of course).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This bears no relation to Adams whatsoever. It's not a reversed dynamic. Adams is funny and, more importantly, thoughtful. This message is just pointlessly mocking. One thing DA never did was open mockery. He made fun of lots of people, but he did it creatively with something to say.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never made any observations about funniness or thoughtfulness, merely which targets are present and whether I detect malice. You're rebutting something I didn't actually say.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moreover, he is wrong. Douglas Adams did openly mock people and ideas and the email in the original post does have a point. Orincoro just wont accept that something can be funny without his approval.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least you can be a douchebag without my approval.
There's no arguing with your claim that DA did openly mock people. This will depend on your very narrow and probably not at all thought out idea of what openly mocking means. When DA made reference to and made light of people and entities in his fiction through his characters, he was not openly mocking them. It's just like when OSC makes political statements with the mouths of his characters- that is not open mockery. In real life, DA was calm and reasonable, and always tried to avoid estranging his philosophical opponents.
In fact, why am I saying any of this? You don't give a crap. So source directly a quotation from Douglas Adams that is OPENLY MOCKING something or someone. Go ahead. I want to see it. Oh... you can't.
But once again Resh, you are SO FUNNY. And everyone respects you SO MUCH. You are the BEST POSTER EVERY. You are FAR from a DOUCHEBAG. You are VALUED by ALL.
Tell me why that's not funny. Douche. I thought you liked open mockery?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the email in the original post does have a point
If you're asserting that the original email has a point, I don't know how you can simultaneously claim not to understand why people might be offended by it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
He doesn't understand, very simply, how people could be offended by it. I said early on that the email did have a point, and I didn't like it, thus, did not find it appealing. Resh just wants to have his cake and eat it too, saying that it is harmless fun, but that there is still an underlying truth that all should recognize... after all, who can say this isn't funny-therefore-a-little-bit-true?
I was trying to explain to my in laws that Christmas is more than a christian holiday, it's an American one.
The protested of course, however when my husband and Sister in Law were little, they had a Christmas tree and presents for them in addition to Chanukah.
When I mentioned this disagreement with a Hindu woman from work, she pointed out that she had a Christmas tree with presents for her son.
Christmas is about Togetherness and presents for the children. It CAN be and often IS celebrated without any religious significance what so ever.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The protested of course, however when my husband and Sister in Law were little, they had a Christmas tree and presents for them in addition to Chanukah.
You say this like it's a good thing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the email in the original post does have a point
If you're asserting that the original email has a point, I don't know how you can simultaneously claim not to understand why people might be offended by it.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Strikes me as none of your business to say whether it was a good thing or not.
Nor the one who said it, if you're right.
And in the general case, if not the specific, it certainly is my business. And that of every other Jew who thinks assimilation is a bad thing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was something you said to me recently about saying hurtful things about the decisions other people have made with their lives.
Besides, you speak English, you don't live in Israel, even if you think about it, so I'm sure according to someone else's definition, you're way too assimilated already. Do you ever say Merry Christmas, or have you ever given a gift to a Christian on Christmas? I'm not a christian either, and I've done that. I'm not in fear of my identity over that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Besides, you speak English, you don't live in Israel, even if you think about it, so I'm sure according to someone else's definition, you're way too assimilated already.
Yup.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Do you ever say Merry Christmas, or have you ever given a gift to a Christian on Christmas?
Nope.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm not in fear of my identity over that.
posted
Ladies and Gentlemen!!!! Enough, already. Or I'll take the thread away.
*wanders off trying to recall the beginning to Romeo and Juliet where Shakespeare opines on civil blood making unclean civil hands . . . *
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Listening to the radio this morning, I heard it said that a lot of humor falls flat because it's trying too hard not to be offensive.
It rung true, but I'd have to be a better comedian to diagnose specific instances. I know it's not funny to have Garfield continue to be lazy and enjoy lasagna, but what kind of edge would make it funny? I'm not sure. I might like it if he got away with serially killing the dogs Jon brought home, but obviously that would upset and offend other people, and I'm not sure if it's really funny or if I'm just a little bit sick in the head.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was thinking about that but it's only funny because of the existence of the original garfield strip. I was trying to think of something that would make Garfield funny all by itself. Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I knew you'd say that. I knew somebody would pull that "I got this from a Democrat so it's ok" move.
It's usually Dag though, so this is certainly a shock.
I'd appreciate some kind of response to my question about this. If you're going to drag my past actions into a conversation I'm not participating in, it'd be nice if you would respond to questions about it.
Based on any interpretation I can come up with for your post, your statement about what I "usually" do is dead wrong. But I'd like to hear your justification for it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Dag, I've not checked this thread in a bit. First, it was a lighthearted comment and dig at you for saying something recently about having many Apple using friends who were offended by the Apple ad we were discussing, rather than PC friends, because the add made Apple people look douchey. There have been several instances, which I don't know how to locate, when you have said "I have many _____ friends who..." It's something I've associated with you because I've seen you say it at least three times. You said it in the apple thread, you said it once in a thread about law school, I think, and I believe you've said it in several of the political threads.
It was just a jab though, and the comment in my post above wasn't being serious. It was only after some people decided I HAD to like the email in order to have a sense of humor, that I got testy.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I accept that it was meant lightly, but it's really not a light jest. Perhaps if i had been participating in the conversation, it could have been, but in this context it doesn't come across that way - and that's without my having read anything that came after.
First, the apple thing is very different. The equivalent in this case would be if I pointed out that I know Republicans who were offended by this joke. That's an entirely different conversation than the one being had here, and the one similarity was that someone mentioned they knew someone.
The second difference was that I mentioned the people I know in the apple thread as a counterexample to the proposition that preference in operating system was a distinguishing factor between people who were offended by the ad and people who weren't. That's a very different use than "I know someone who..." was put to here.
Third, I'd love to see any example where I have said something like "Person X isn't offended by Y, therefore person Z (who shares attribute A with X) shouldn't be either." At most, I would say that knowing X would support someone saying that they didn't know Y would offend other people with attribute A.
I know lots of people who think lots of things. Sometimes it's relevant, and I bring it up. I have never, to my knowledge, brought it up to make the point you identified in your post. Therefore, I'd be interested in knowing where you got the impression that I think that so that I can clarify or, if necessary, correct the statement I made giving rise to that impression.
***
As for the joke itself, I can see where someone would get offended by the joke. I have also seen first-hand situations that would lead me to want to greet someone in that fashion. I have, in fact, made very similar jokes, but in reference to specific people.
Extending it to all democrats is, of course, absurd were someone to mean that all/most/many democrats were like that. I think it's clear the joke is not meant to do that, although I'm sure there are some people who would.
As humor, it's likely to strike some in the targeted group as funny and piss off others. It doesn't really do either for me. I think it's too broad to be really stinging satire. I don't think either reaction is wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said what I wanted: for you to point out the things that led to this conclusion so I can clarify or correct.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. Why should I go routing around looking for things so that you can deny that they mean what I think they mean or apply to the situation in a way that you find important? I don't have to justify anything to you.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nor do you have to say anything about me. But you chose to do so.
I don't particularly care if you believe inaccurate things about me. I do care that you chose to publish those inaccurate things.
When I say something about someone that turns out to be inaccurate, I correct the inaccuracy. I was assuming that you had the same respect for the truth that I did.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you weren't such a bully when you disagreed with me, maybe I would feel slightly worse about saying disparaging things. An off-handed comment that is mostly a joke is not libelous, so stop pushing me around, and just leave me alone with lack of accuracy and my disrespect for the truth.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say it was libelous. It was wrong. I've addressed the one example you've given. You refuse to give other examples. You refuse to retract your erroneous statement about me. And you still can't refrain from saying untrue things about me - I haven't ever bullied you. Nor have I "pushed you around." Here's what I have done:
1. I asked for specific examples.
2. When I noticed you had been posting a while, I brought the matter to your attention again, stated my opinion about what you had said, and asked again for specifics.
3. I explained why the example you did give was not actually an example of what you originally accused me of and stated why I would like to see the other examples. (I also gave my opinion on the OP, but that's not directly relevant.)
4. In response to your asking me what I wanted, I restated that I would like to see the other examples.
5. In response to your refusal and your statement that you don't have to "justify" anything to me, I stated the nature of my grievance and why I would consider an explanation to be important had I made misstatements about another.
None of that is bullying. None of that is "pushing you around." Nor does it justify your spreading untruths about me.
I can't believe the guy who attacked me when I wasn't even around is now playing the victim. It's especially galling since your attack was untrue.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Alas. Had you only extended this courtesy to me, this conversation wouldn't have happened. But you didn't. So it did.
As it is, I am not going to "leave you alone" about this merely because you command me to. I have no obligation to leave your excuses and snark unanswered.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ketchupqueen: your comment about the yams was the funniest thing I have seen or heard all day. (even though I have never heard your voice, I could almost hear you say it!) It made me laugh that was what you picked up on.
Posts: 204 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I can't believe the guy who attacked me when I wasn't even around is now playing the victim. It's especially galling since your attack was untrue.
This is a ubiquitous liberal tactic. They use it to support everything from abortion to Palestine's right to bomb innocent Israelis without having to fear Israeli retribution. I'm so sick of disingenuous liars claiming the victim status.
Sorry, Dag, I know you hate it when I take your side.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: This is a ubiquitous liberal tactic. They use it to support everything from abortion to Palestine's right to bomb innocent Israelis without having to fear Israeli retribution. I'm so sick of disingenuous liars claiming the victim status.
Does your keyboard automatically parse all your posts with extra irony?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where can I get one of those? My Irony Board is starting to overheat... oops, Pun Lock key was on.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
