Riddle me this, Batman: How come everybody found it so acceptable to make fun of Terri Schiavo?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (239 of them)
Ah, shit. Forgot what thread I was on.

Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Friday, 1 April 2005 20:07 (nineteen years ago) link

"Here's a few posts from the LOL thread, picked at random. I don't think Shakey will be unable to explain these in accordance with his theory, but I do think it will be humorous to see him try. "

I don't understand any of those posts you picked so I can't really say. are they supposed to be jokes/funny? I can't tell. I'm mystified that anyone would find such fault with my assertion that an awful lot of humor is based on suffering - it's not like I'm the first person (much less the first comedian) to make this observation. Any routine where the comedian is making fun of themselves (Seinfeld, Woody Allen, Rodney Dangerfield, ad nauseam) is clearly based on the comedian's perceived "suffering". Cruel jokes about other people (Terry Schiavo, the Pope, Michael Jackson) are clearly based on their suffering. Slapstick = suffering physical pain. Racist humor is clearly based on humiliating/making light of the suffering of others. There's tons of routines about people enduring various indignities which are obviously based on turning their own suffering into comedy... I could go on and on...

I'm just saying I don't think there's anything wrong with this, per se - whether you find any of these things funny depends entirely on your personal distance from the subject. Terry Schiavo, for example, was pretty distant from me on an emotional level - she was thrust into the media spotlight and quickly became a caricature - as such, I found a lot of the photoshop stuff hilarious, and I don't feel any need to apologize for it. It's personally reasonable that other people who DID feel some sort of emotional resonance with her story to NOT find that stuff funny... but that's no justification for telling other people not to make those jokes or not to laugh. Humor is relative, if you don't think a particular subject is deserving of humor, DON'T READ JOKES ABOUT IT.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 April 2005 20:11 (nineteen years ago) link

"Here's a few posts from the LOL thread, picked at random. I don't think Shakey will be unable to explain these in accordance with his theory, but I do think it will be humorous to see him try. "

I don't understand any of those posts you picked so I can't really say. are they supposed to be jokes/funny? I can't tell. I'm mystified that anyone would find such fault with my assertion that an awful lot of humor is based on suffering - it's not like I'm the first person (much less the first comedian) to make this observation. Any routine where the comedian is making fun of themselves (Seinfeld, Woody Allen, Rodney Dangerfield, ad nauseam) is clearly based on the comedian's perceived "suffering". Cruel jokes about other people (Terry Schiavo, the Pope, Michael Jackson) are clearly based on their suffering. Slapstick = suffering physical pain. Racist humor is clearly based on humiliating/making light of the suffering of others. There's tons of routines about people enduring various indignities which are obviously based on turning their own suffering into comedy... I could go on and on...

I'm just saying I don't think there's anything wrong with this, per se - whether you find any of these things funny depends entirely on your personal distance from the subject. Terry Schiavo, for example, was pretty distant from me on an emotional level - she was thrust into the media spotlight and quickly became a caricature - as such, I found a lot of the photoshop stuff hilarious, and I don't feel any need to apologize for it. It's perfectly reasonable that other people who DID feel some sort of emotional resonance with her story to NOT find that stuff funny... but that's no justification for telling other people not to make those jokes or not to laugh. Humor is relative, if you don't think a particular subject is deserving of humor, DON'T READ JOKES ABOUT IT.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 April 2005 20:11 (nineteen years ago) link

yikes - sorry for the doublepost.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 April 2005 20:13 (nineteen years ago) link

NO YOU'RE NOT, YOU HUMOR FACIST

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 1 April 2005 20:15 (nineteen years ago) link

I wasn't objecting to you saying a lot of humor is based on suffering, because that wasn't what you said at first.

()ops (()()ps), Friday, 1 April 2005 20:22 (nineteen years ago) link

I said the majority of it is based on suffering - the rest is based on absurdist nonsense (or some combination thereof).

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 April 2005 20:23 (nineteen years ago) link

Hahahahaha! "I didn't say 'a lot', I said 'the majority'! GET IT RIGHT!"

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 1 April 2005 20:29 (nineteen years ago) link

yeah, I don't see why I had too make any distinction there (is there some nuance/contradiction Ooops is getting at that I'm missing?)

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 April 2005 20:32 (nineteen years ago) link

yeah, you FACIST

Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 1 April 2005 20:32 (nineteen years ago) link

making fun of my facism is NOT FUNNY!

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 April 2005 20:36 (nineteen years ago) link

esp. since you're jewish.

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 1 April 2005 20:39 (nineteen years ago) link

The thing was that you left NO room for any other type of humor, and when confronted with humor that didn't fit into your theory, you tried to awkwardly shoehorn it in.

()ops (()()ps), Friday, 1 April 2005 20:40 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't think so. I mean the Seinfeld "what's up with toothpaste" thing is so clearly a combination of absurdism ("who gets wound up about toothpaste?") and his suffering ("haha! look how wound up he is about toothpaste!") I didn't feel the need to elaborate very far. As far as the Carlin stuff goes, no one gave me any specific reference points as to his material, so I just kinda jokingly played along. Sorry if I didn't make these points too clearly.

As for the "pissing in my chicken" thing - some people WOULD find it funny (ever seen a Farrelly Bros movie? A South Park episode? TV Funhouse?), and it would be funny because of my reaction to it/how I dealt with suffering the humiliation, etc. Would I personally be laughing? No, obviously not, but that's because it would be happening to ME and not someone ELSE (ie, no emotional distance).

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 April 2005 20:44 (nineteen years ago) link

I feel like I'm explaining 2+2 here...

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 April 2005 20:45 (nineteen years ago) link

so, like, with a play on words, we're laughing at the suffering of linguists??

that is not why seinfeld stuff is funny. "it's funny cause it's true" ring a bell?

re: racial jokes, you can't say a particular joke is funny cause racial stereotypes have hurt people. okay you can say that, i'll just think you're full of shit. again "it's funny cause it's true".

()ops (()()ps), Friday, 1 April 2005 20:49 (nineteen years ago) link

no you're explaining 2 +2=4 and adding that that is the only way to obtain a sum of 4.

()ops (()()ps), Friday, 1 April 2005 20:51 (nineteen years ago) link

"that is not why seinfeld stuff is funny. "it's funny cause it's true" ring a bell?"

but this is just an extension of exaggerating the absurdity of whatever daily-life minutiae (in this case toothpaste) is being targeted. "its funny cuz its true because toothpaste really IS fucking bizarre! what's up with that!"

plays on language = nonsense, obviously. See Lewis Carrol. Or Ogden Nash.

(yes, I know I'm being reductionist in my analysis here - but only because complaining about offensive jokes cuts to the heart of why people find anything funny at all.)

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 April 2005 20:59 (nineteen years ago) link

but the family .. I just can't blame them.
i can, and i do.
an analogy:

Another analogy. Your wife/child is about to die. You can make a pact with the devil to keep her alive. It's a bad choice, but you might be tempted to make it, for the right reason.

They were using ever resource available in a life or death matter. I don't think they made wise choices, but I do think their ultimate intentions were for their daughter and not to be media whores.

But your point is well taken that they did make horrible decisions.

dave225 (Dave225), Friday, 1 April 2005 21:00 (nineteen years ago) link

like i said, you can call anything absurd/nonsensical if you want to.

()ops (()()ps), Friday, 1 April 2005 21:01 (nineteen years ago) link

Oops, that's absurd!

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 1 April 2005 21:02 (nineteen years ago) link

that is not why seinfeld stuff is funny. "it's funny cause it's true" ring a bell?

Assuming facts not in evidence. 90% of Seinfeld isn't funny to me.

M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 1 April 2005 21:05 (nineteen years ago) link

I'm also mystified that any fan of Seinfeld, and particularly his show, can't register that his entire schtick is based on a) suffering from neuroses and b) being cruel to others.

(and fwiw, I don't find Seinfeld funny at all. But I can see why other people do.)

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 April 2005 21:06 (nineteen years ago) link

Here's an example of laughing at others' suffering from the Oakland thread:

A friend of ours who owns a house in West Oakland heard gunshots last month and later found out there was a shooting in the house over the street. Then a week later, they heard gunshots in the house NEXT DOOR and it turns out that a 15 year-old girl had witnessed the first shooting, so they broke into her house and shot her through the hand and the foot in retaliation.
He's thinking of selling.

-- Airtube (adamr...) (webmail), April 1st, 2005 1:44 PM. (nordicskilla) (later)

M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 1 April 2005 21:07 (nineteen years ago) link

whoa I'm not a fan of Seifeld the stand-up.
his entire schtick is based upon focusing on the banal things in life that most everyone has had experience with, and saying "what's the deal with X" a lot.
but whatever, you're right*. the entire realm of humor can be condensed into two neat little categories.

*but you aren't.

()ops (()()ps), Friday, 1 April 2005 21:11 (nineteen years ago) link

what if i were to do the robot? that's absurd, right? cause we all know humans aren't really robots!!! it doesn't make sense!

()ops (()()ps), Friday, 1 April 2005 21:13 (nineteen years ago) link

"his entire schtick is based upon focusing on the banal things in life"

uh, have you SEEN the last episode of Seinfeld, where they all get thrown in jail because they've been such assholes over the duration of the entire show? It's not all observational humor - a lot of times it's about taking those observations to an *ahem* absurd level and making other people (or himself) suffer as a result.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 April 2005 21:15 (nineteen years ago) link

"what if i were to do the robot?"

but this is just a premise, not a joke. Now, say you were a porn-chasin, booze-drinkin, pathological liar robot and we're halfway to a TV series...

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 April 2005 21:16 (nineteen years ago) link

uh delete that last post, I misread yr post. Doing the robot IS funny!

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 1 April 2005 21:17 (nineteen years ago) link

There's this silly meme in life, especially in American life wherein everybody believes that if you stay optimistic, if you pray really hard or say 'I believe in fairies' that everything will turn out OK and Tinkerbell won't die. It's childish and lends itself sickeningly to an American exceptionalism that thinks that over here everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds by eliding or stubbornly ignoring all the suffering and injustice that make us just like the rest of the world. This happened during the Schiavo ordeal and now those people are going to have to find who stabbed us in the back and made us lose the war killed Terri and pillory the fuck out of them even if they have to wipe their asses on the Constitution to do it.

M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 1 April 2005 21:25 (nineteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.