The most important thing about jokes is that they conform to reality. That’s why when I was told that when a horse came into a bar and the bartender asked him, “why the long face?” I explained that no one should have to ask why a horse’s face is long because they all have long faces and that horses don’t walk into bars, but even if they did, that isn’t the question bartenders ask humans either.
And don’t even get me started with people just saying “knock knock” rather than knocking on a door.
Where did I state it had to conform to reality? Please explain.
I don’t think a joke has to conform to reality but let’s say for the sake of argument that I did express that this joke has to. What would be a difference between a joke about a horse in a bar and this joke? Oh one is just a joke, one is a joke to propagate a perspective on political events. Would that be a good reason to have a different standard for them? Yes. Especially after we saw the right meme and joke about e.g. feminism and the negative effects. Do I hold that position? Honestly not sure, ATM I would say no, even “political” jokes don’t have to conform reality. It is just odd that you made a comparison to an obviously different category of jokes.
Okay, well if you aren’t saying that jokes should conform to reality and if you aren’t complaining that people are finding this funny when you aren’t, maybe you shouldn’t be making any sort of deal about this and stop being such a killjoy.
So I can’t criticize something, while enjoying it (or some parts of it) but people can’t make the difference between criticism and trying to ban it, and/or they can’t deal with criticism of a media that they enjoy and therefore it kills their joy. Ok.
As we give each other advices, maybe read what a person is saying instead of what you want them to say, so you can feel like they are forbidden you stuff, to then forbid them stuff. As you can tell, It makes it difficult to engage more deeply with art and that is a killjoy.
I am sorry that I forced you to read my comment with some many down votes. You couldn’t have known. You couldn’t have avoided it. I am sorry.
Interesting. You’re complaining about someone criticizing you by suggesting you’re not allowed to be critical. I wonder whether you realize the double-standard or if you’re just okay with it?
Incidentally, if you read my comment, I used the word “maybe,” meaning I was not telling you what you can and cannot do, which is pretty ironic since you said to me:
As we give each other advices, maybe read what a person is saying
Mhm I somewhat agree. I see your point but it wouldn’t be difficult to show you how it isn’t a double-standard.
Your usage of “should” suggest an “ought” and given your previous criticism of my behavior, I made the assumption that you would suggest an ought. If I was wrong, I am sorry.
I never said or did anything that suggested that you can’t find the joke funny. My comment even highlights the reasons why you would find it funny. And I really don’t think anything suggested that it wasn’t based in reality and/or that it has to be.
And ultimately, you chose to read a comment with (at the time) ±20 down votes, you chose to engage with that “negative” content to complained about that “negative” content. When I wrote my initial comment, I didn’t chose to be bothered by people unable to read what it actually and clearly says. When you engaged with my comment, you chose to have this interaction. You chose to engage in a hostile conversation. And reading something seemingly hostile as hostile, is kinda the point of the joke. So I acted entirety within the framework that the joke that you try to defend, sets up.
I used neither the word ought or the word negative in any post I made to you. I also didn’t complain about anything. Again, ironic considering you said, “maybe read what a person is saying.”
The most important thing about jokes is that they conform to reality. That’s why when I was told that when a horse came into a bar and the bartender asked him, “why the long face?” I explained that no one should have to ask why a horse’s face is long because they all have long faces and that horses don’t walk into bars, but even if they did, that isn’t the question bartenders ask humans either.
And don’t even get me started with people just saying “knock knock” rather than knocking on a door.
Where did I state it had to conform to reality? Please explain.
I don’t think a joke has to conform to reality but let’s say for the sake of argument that I did express that this joke has to. What would be a difference between a joke about a horse in a bar and this joke? Oh one is just a joke, one is a joke to propagate a perspective on political events. Would that be a good reason to have a different standard for them? Yes. Especially after we saw the right meme and joke about e.g. feminism and the negative effects. Do I hold that position? Honestly not sure, ATM I would say no, even “political” jokes don’t have to conform reality. It is just odd that you made a comparison to an obviously different category of jokes.
Yes, I get it. How dare people find things funny you don’t.
Where did I say that?
Okay, well if you aren’t saying that jokes should conform to reality and if you aren’t complaining that people are finding this funny when you aren’t, maybe you shouldn’t be making any sort of deal about this and stop being such a killjoy.
So I can’t criticize something, while enjoying it (or some parts of it) but people can’t make the difference between criticism and trying to ban it, and/or they can’t deal with criticism of a media that they enjoy and therefore it kills their joy. Ok.
As we give each other advices, maybe read what a person is saying instead of what you want them to say, so you can feel like they are forbidden you stuff, to then forbid them stuff. As you can tell, It makes it difficult to engage more deeply with art and that is a killjoy.
I am sorry that I forced you to read my comment with some many down votes. You couldn’t have known. You couldn’t have avoided it. I am sorry.
Interesting. You’re complaining about someone criticizing you by suggesting you’re not allowed to be critical. I wonder whether you realize the double-standard or if you’re just okay with it?
Incidentally, if you read my comment, I used the word “maybe,” meaning I was not telling you what you can and cannot do, which is pretty ironic since you said to me:
Mhm I somewhat agree. I see your point but it wouldn’t be difficult to show you how it isn’t a double-standard.
Your usage of “should” suggest an “ought” and given your previous criticism of my behavior, I made the assumption that you would suggest an ought. If I was wrong, I am sorry.
I never said or did anything that suggested that you can’t find the joke funny. My comment even highlights the reasons why you would find it funny. And I really don’t think anything suggested that it wasn’t based in reality and/or that it has to be.
And ultimately, you chose to read a comment with (at the time) ±20 down votes, you chose to engage with that “negative” content to complained about that “negative” content. When I wrote my initial comment, I didn’t chose to be bothered by people unable to read what it actually and clearly says. When you engaged with my comment, you chose to have this interaction. You chose to engage in a hostile conversation. And reading something seemingly hostile as hostile, is kinda the point of the joke. So I acted entirety within the framework that the joke that you try to defend, sets up.
I used neither the word ought or the word negative in any post I made to you. I also didn’t complain about anything. Again, ironic considering you said, “maybe read what a person is saying.”