Discussion about joke about Gen. Petraeus

Post by **Erunáme** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:26 pm

Lalaith wrote:We here, in general, over-analyze things, and that's the nature of written communication. In real life, if Lord M had made his comment, I may not even have given it a second thought. If I had, I might have just said right then and there, "I don't think that's really funny." And, if the conversation had continued, I would have said what I said about it hitting too close to my own insecurities or something. Maybe a longer discussion would have resulted, but maybe not. More likely, we would have laughed and moved on! Maybe a pint of Guinness would have been involved, and there you go.

This, this, this. Sometimes things get blown a bit out of proportion because of the format of a message board. In real life, I think people would move on a lot quicker as there's tone of voice and facial expressions.. and we can't all mull over what we're going to carefully say for 15 minutes.

And Alatar, I'm confident in saying that I think you're quite thick skinned! I wish I was more like you in that regards. It's also probably why you have a hard time understanding why someone could be offended. I don't know that it's an Irish thing, but more a personality thing. I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who wouldn't have batted an eye at LM's joke. Oh and "slagging off" has always meant "talking badly about someone behind their back" to me.. not something affectionate.

Post by **Frelga** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:30 pm

Alatar - OK, that may explain it.

Post by **JewelSong** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:38 pm

anthy wrote:Unfortunately, you seem to think that me walking out was some sort of strategy, and it wasn't... PURE reflex. I just couldn't believe that was being said, and I sort of just automatically moved, for self-preservation, somehow.

I didn't think it was a conscious thing. I realize it was a reaction. However, we CAN change our reactions to such things, it just takes a little practice. Next time someone makes a boorish joke, take a breath or two before you say or do anything. That will give you time to respond pro-actively.

It's the old "counting to ten" idea.

How about dead baby jokes?

Post by **WampusCat** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:55 pm

Sigh. I tried. Obviously people would rather insist they are right.

Post by **JewelSong** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:06 pm

WampusCat wrote:Sigh. I tried. Obviously people would rather insist they are right.

Huh???

I have no idea who or what this is directed to. Or what you mean by "I tried."

I thought we were having a discussion with many viewpoints. Nowhere in this thread do I see ANYONE "insisting that they are right."

And since this was posted right after my post, I am wondering if you are somehow referring to me. Although I don't see how.

Maybe you could explain?

ETA: I see you meant your "proposal" post with the numbered ideas. I thought they were good ideas. And I don't see anyone refuting them. The discussion is simply continuing and meandering, as we tend to do at HoF. That's all.

Post by **Erunáme** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:06 pm

I thought it was an excellent post Wampus.

Sorry if I'm giving the opposite impression.

Post by **River** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:08 pm

Erunáme wrote: This, this, this. Sometimes things get blown a bit out of proportion because of the format of a message board. In real life, I think people would move on a lot quicker as there's tone of voice and facial expressions.. and we can't all mull over what we're going to carefully say for 15 minutes.

**looks at length of this thread
**looks at the length of the Petraeus thread this thread sprang from

No kidding.

Post by **narya** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:24 pm

Maybe it's just a case of nature abhorring a vacuum. A post-election-frenzy vacuum.

I find it a little unnerving that a person A can complain to an FBI friend about receiving an anonymous email (accusing her of being a flirt) from person B and then the FBI rummages thru not only person B's emails, but also person B's computer and the emails of everyone person B was in contact with. Clearly the message here is: post from the public library.

(pleeeze note smiley).

Post by **JewelSong** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:27 pm

Clearly the message here is: post from the public library.

Now, THAT was funny. And elicited a snort of appreciation from me.

Post by **River** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:37 pm

Post by **Lalaith** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:38 pm

narya wrote:Clearly the message here is: post from the public library.

What??!!

Public libraries are bastions of free speech and moral purity! They should not be sullied by illicit and immoral activities!

Post by **Maria** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:38 pm

I don't understand all the interest in the sex life of people you don't even know.

It really doesn't make sense to me at all.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:27 pm

I guess I have even more trouble understanding interest in the sex lives of people I do know. . . .

(I think there's a general fascination with powerful people screwing up.)

Post by **Holbytla** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:20 pm

Primula Baggins wrote:I guess I have even more trouble understanding interest in the sex lives of people I do know. . . .

(I think there's a general fascination with powerful people screwing up.)

I think that is true. The media can be rightfully accused of delightfully building people up and delightfully tearing them down as well.

We've all seen physical comedy. The hammer to the head or the guy doing a faceplant after trying to jump over something on a bike. Those things are funny to the people who aren't being injured.

I think there may be a correlation with jokes about people that aren't injured and physical comedy that doesn't involve you as the injured party.

Post by **yovargas** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:26 pm

Holbytla wrote:We've all seen physical comedy. The hammer to the head or the guy doing a faceplant after trying to jump over something on a bike. Those things are funny to the people who aren't being injured.

One thing that can ruin a good "hammer to the head" gag is knowing that, say, the blow lead to permanent brain damage. Usually, people stop laughing when they realize the damage is real and serious.

Post by **Holbytla** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:33 pm

yovargas wrote:
Holbytla wrote:We've all seen physical comedy. The hammer to the head or the guy doing a faceplant after trying to jump over something on a bike. Those things are funny to the people who aren't being injured.
One thing that can ruin a good "hammer to the head" gag is knowing that, say, the blow lead to permanent brain damage. Usually, people stop laughing when they realize the damage is real and serious.

I'm guessing that you've never seen the Three Stooges?

Post by **Nin** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:37 pm

anthriel wrote:
Nin, I have found that Europeans seem very serious about things that I would not consider a big deal. One of the first interactions I had with you (on TORC) is when you got very upset about me using a certain word that means something different here in the USA than it does in Europe (or at least it has different meanings here, one of which is commonly used in a funny context). You were VERY upset, and I feel like that one "mistake" on my part has forever colored our relationship, although I did try to apologize at the time.

I don't even remember that interaction.... and what it was about

- so it has most certainly coloured nothing. Now I desperately try to remember.

ETA something stupid, maybe: Alatar, you are not fat! You are eventually chubby at the best. You see, I had my adultery with a man who was older, shorter and fatter than my first husband - and it was not understood either.

Next time someone makes a joke like this, I'll draw the Diana and Camilla card... (Ok, it's late, I needed something light-hearted)

Post by **River** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:34 pm

yovargas wrote:
Holbytla wrote:We've all seen physical comedy. The hammer to the head or the guy doing a faceplant after trying to jump over something on a bike. Those things are funny to the people who aren't being injured.
One thing that can ruin a good "hammer to the head" gag is knowing that, say, the blow lead to permanent brain damage. Usually, people stop laughing when they realize the damage is real and serious.

Yeah, I've been on the receiving end of a couple epic face plants and have too much empathy for the face-plantee to laugh at those vids. Though I do otherwise get a good laugh out of the Fail Blog. It's just, with the face plants, I know too much about what it feels like. Even though I've made fun of my own accidents and expect people to laugh with me when I describe what I looked like after my bicycle and I picked a fight with a SUV, I can't laugh when it happens to someone else. Weird, huh?

Post by **yovargas** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:36 pm

Holbytla wrote:I'm guessing that you've never seen the Three Stooges?

I'm pretty sure if the Stooges antics led to permanent crippling injuries, the characters wouldn't have lasted as long as they did. What's the point of an eye poke gag if the last eye poke already left the guy for life?

Post by **nerdanel** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:57 am

River wrote:
yovargas wrote:
Holbytla wrote:We've all seen physical comedy. The hammer to the head or the guy doing a faceplant after trying to jump over something on a bike. Those things are funny to the people who aren't being injured.
One thing that can ruin a good "hammer to the head" gag is knowing that, say, the blow lead to permanent brain damage. Usually, people stop laughing when they realize the damage is real and serious.
Yeah, I've been on the receiving end of a couple epic face plants and have too much empathy for the face-plantee to laugh at those vids. Though I do otherwise get a good laugh out of the Fail Blog. It's just, with the face plants, I know too much about what it feels like. Even though I've made fun of my own accidents and expect people to laugh with me when I describe what I looked like after my bicycle and I picked a fight with a SUV, I can't laugh when it happens to someone else. Weird, huh?

Exactly. And yov and River have captured two points that are very important to me:

- It's totally okay to laugh at your own misfortune and invite others to laugh with you. We've had some people do this in the Coping thread, and L_M and River have provided examples of this in the thread. The only reason I can think of that anyone might reasonably object to this is someone who has just gone through the same sort of misfortune and doesn't find the joke funny. Even then I think they'd be sensitive to the fact that someone else who was similarly situated was joking to get through it.

- I really disagree with people who don't share a particular demographic characteristic mocking that demographic, or laughing at a (physically or emotionally) injured person's misfortune, then chastising people who don't find it funny for being "thin skinned" or lacking a sense of humor. yov's examples of non-Mexicans mocking Mexican stereotypes and heterosexuals mocking gay people and Holby's examples of physical comedy are illustrative. We also see this with men making sexist jokes, but claiming that people should not be offended because obviously they aren't sexist (to which I say, really? Why should that be obvious? So far the empirical evidence is that you like making sexist jokes.) I'm also reminded of meeting a white guy who wanted to get three kittens and name each of them a racist slur (including the N-word.) He was offended that I didn't think this was funny, because obviously he was not racist, and obviously, it was totally okay for non-racist whites to use racist slurs as a joke (?!).

What's worse than the initial jokes, though, which I find inappropriate, is that the original jokesters often show themselves to be the most thin-skinned of all with the degree of butt-hurtness they often exhibit when being told their joke wasn't (universally perceived as) funny. For being so very thick-skinned, they often don't take disagreement very well at all. Others trumpet the virtues of free speech (as applied to them) while seemingly missing the concept that free speech applies equally to the offended person's prerogative to express themselves. (To be clear, to his credit, L_M is in neither of these categories. But I think this conversation has moved well past the initial remark about Holly Petraeus.)