Comments on Political Humor (split from Political Humor)

[zapatos]

Here are a number of comments made by Trump that we were expected to excuse because we were later told "It was a joke." I'm not the joke czar so I cannot stop someone from claiming any statement they wish as a joke, but as with all terms, when you start using them in ways that are well outside the norm, those terms become meaningless. The term "joke" is no exception.

"Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," 

"No, I meant he's <Obama> the founder of ISIS," Trump said on Hewitt's show. "I do."

"Any guy who can do a body slam — he's my guy,"

"Somebody had to do it," Trump said, before looking to the sky and saying, "I am the Chosen One."

"And by the way, likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine," 

"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds interesting to me."

 

[TheVat]

48 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Fresh of the press. Charlie Hebdo. "Earthquake in Turkey, We don't need to send in tanks". Not funny to me...but acceptable in France.

Whoa.  That is pretty dark.   7000+ people dying hideous crushing deaths doesn't seem to me like it's ever going to be great material for jokes. Of course, Mel Brooks and other brilliant comic writers/performers have made jokes about the Holocaust, so I guess there's something to be said for being able to laugh at horrific events.  I would guess there's a fine line there to tread, where people want to laugh at something terrible so they aren't afraid of it or traumatized about it, where there's some kind of healthy emotional release from the awfulness,  but at the same time not be callous and cruel as regards the victims of terrible events.  I think we have to accept that treading the line will inevitably involve transgressions that are too far.  The question may be one of intent.  Did the joke makers just get carried away and thoughtless, or was there a real malign aspect?

There's a saying in US standup comedy:  "Dying is easy, comedy is hard."  

 

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Whoa.  That is pretty dark.   7000+ people dying hideous crushing deaths doesn't seem to me like it's ever going to be great material for jokes. Of course, Mel Brooks and other brilliant comic writers/performers have made jokes about the Holocaust, so I guess there's something to be said for being able to laugh at horrific events.  I would guess there's a fine line there to tread, where people want to laugh at something terrible so they aren't afraid of it or traumatized about it, where there's some kind of healthy emotional release from the awfulness,  but at the same time not be callous and cruel as regards the victims of terrible events.  I think we have to accept that treading the line will inevitably involve transgressions that are too far.  The question may be one of intent.  Did the joke makers just get carried away and thoughtless, or was there a real malign aspect?

There's a saying in US standup comedy:  "Dying is easy, comedy is hard."  

 

We would have to take the time to find the motivations for that cartoon's conception. On the face of it, it feels vindictive, but that's by my interpretation.

[Moontanman]

If the Israeli government is exempt for humor then this entire thread should be closed. I see no reason to exempt The Israeli government from political humor, they are no more exempt from humor than anyone else. 

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

If the Israeli government is exempt for humor then this entire thread should be closed. I see no reason to exempt The Israeli government from political humor, they are no more exempt from humor than anyone else. 

You have misread this entire thread if that is what you think we are saying.

[MigL]

That joke disparages three groups of people, depending on your viewpoint.
It disparages Jewish people, Americans who support Israel's right to exist, and people like MisterMack who believe there is only one side to every story ( maybe he really does ) instead of nuanced viewpoints.

When you look at it that way it actually is funny; I myself will often turn a blind eye to some of the things Israel does because I fully support their right to exist in peace.
And just like MisterMack sees only the Jewish bulldozing land seizures ( with American support ), people like me see only the homemade rockets fired indiscriminately into Israel from those same bulldozed and seized lands.

If it weren't so sad, it would definitely be funny.

[mistermack]

50 minutes ago, MigL said:

When you look at it that way it actually is funny; I myself will often turn a blind eye to some of the things Israel does because I fully support their right to exist in peace.

So do I. But I don't support their right to occupy a stolen land, which is what Israel is. 

Would the USA allow a religious takeover of Utah?  Not a chance. Would they allow an independent Jewish state in Montana? Of course not. It's ok for Arabs, but not Americans. No country would allow it. Not even a peaceful takeover, let alone sanction the existing population to be put in squalid little refugee camps inside their own country.

Americans did it to their own indigenous people and support it in Israel, because Indians and Arabs didn't fully count as people. It's Christian Europeans vs heathen indians and infidel arabs. There's no way they would have done it to a white people. 

How long after something is stolen before it becomes the rightful property of the thief? Paintings stolen from Jews in WW2 are expected to be returned. The same therefore applies in reverse. They should return the stolen land and pay compensation. 

[swansont]

54 minutes ago, mistermack said:

But I don't support their right to occupy a stolen land, which is what Israel is. 

Would the USA allow a religious takeover of Utah?

The USA isn’t exactly the poster child of a government not occupying a stolen land.

[zapatos]

58 minutes ago, mistermack said:

So do I. But I don't support their right to occupy a stolen land, which is what Israel is. 

Would the USA allow a religious takeover of Utah?  Not a chance. Would they allow an independent Jewish state in Montana? Of course not. It's ok for Arabs, but not Americans. No country would allow it. Not even a peaceful takeover, let alone sanction the existing population to be put in squalid little refugee camps inside their own country.

Americans did it to their own indigenous people and support it in Israel, because Indians and Arabs didn't fully count as people. It's Christian Europeans vs heathen indians and infidel arabs. There's no way they would have done it to a white people. 

How long after something is stolen before it becomes the rightful property of the thief? Paintings stolen from Jews in WW2 are expected to be returned. The same therefore applies in reverse. They should return the stolen land and pay compensation. 

This post confirms for me my interpretation of mistermack's two cows story as a political statement rather than a joke. As such it probably should have been posted in the Politics section. The Israeli/Palestinian issue has enough meat on it to keep us talking for months!

[mistermack]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

This post confirms for me my interpretation of mistermack's two cows story as a political statement rather than a joke. As such it probably should have been posted in the Politics section. The Israeli/Palestinian issue has enough meat on it to keep us talking for months!

It can be both, it doesn't have to be either/or. My original post was a cock up. Somehow, when looking at the jokes, I clicked myself accidentally onto page one of the thread, and that had the original joke in it, so I thought I was just appending a joke made hours or days ago. I just added a line to that joke in the same format. I don't see anything wrong with that, in a political joke section, but of course if it doesn't follow on from the original, it's got no context. 

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, mistermack said:

...but of course if it doesn't follow on from the original, it's got no context. 

Yes, that definitely impacted my view of your post. When @TheVat pointed out the original joke on page 1 I read it and saw your post in a bit of a different light.

[TheVat]

I especially liked this bit from Shadow's humorous list....

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.

Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.

[iNow]

This discussion has led me to recall the following:

//“Nazis use satire, humour or “lolz” as partial immunity for their hate, allowing them tolerance from those who would (or should) otherwise repudiate it. As the guide states: “Packing our message inside of … humour can be viewed as a delivery method. Something like adding cherry flavour to children’s medicine.”

<...>

When white people wield the conch of humour, people of colour are supposed to just endure the racism that comes out and laugh at the humour encasing it. This is the model neo-Nazis view as fertile ground for spreading hate.

<...>

Here’s a hint: if your view aligns with a neo-Nazi writing guide, it’s probably wrong.

It’s too easy not to care about words, jokes and actions when you’re not the one affected by it. While I’m glad most white people seem to passionately oppose Nazis, that’s not a particularly high moral bar to pass. If you believe that Nazi ideology should be opposed, you can’t just ignore the way this ideology is spread. And normalisation through humour is a key part of that.”\\

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/19/neo-nazis-hatred-comedy-racist-daily-stormer

 

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

The Israeli/Palestinian issue has enough meat on it to keep us talking for months!

Decades, even!
/rimshot

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

I don't see anything wrong with that, in a political joke section, but of course if it doesn't follow on from the original, it's got no context. 

For years, political jokes were being shared in the Official Jokes section thread. It was decided that not all science minded members here wanted political barbs and jokes in their otherwise apolitical jokes thread (and it also looked bad to newly minted site members) so my post made over there in that thread got split into its new home over here in the Politics section along with several that followed (I.e. I didn’t technically create this thread even though I’m displayed as its OP).

See also:

Humans are complex. 

Thank you mod team for splitting this, btw. ✌🏼

Edited February 9, 2023 by iNow

[Moontanman]

I guess if Israel has a God given right to the land they occupy and they have the right to round up the previous inhabitants and push them into what amounts to a concentration camp then by extension Native Americans, by the authority of the Great Spirit, should have the right to take back all our lands the Europeans took and round them up into concentration camps (reservations) and starve them out. Maybe Native Americans can get the support of Russia and China to help us enforce our claims? 

Israel is the bad guy in this and their claims are based on nothing but religion, the Palestinians have just as much right to exist on that land, I see no way to get around this logically.  

I can honestly say I have nothing against the Jewish people individually or as a people but they get no magical pass either. And the whataboutism of saying other countries have no room to talk is a very sad excuse.       

[swansont]

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

This post confirms for me my interpretation of mistermack's two cows story as a political statement rather than a joke.

It can be both, can’t it? There are a number of comedians who do political satire.

[StringJunky]

Are we conflating humour with satire? 

[TheVat]

They seem to overlap.

Apropos of this chat I just  saw this posted over in Jokes...

 

I suspect this was an innocent mistake, but I did point out the problem, especially for an American, with John's quip.  And the DV he won is one I won't "neutralize."  You Brits need to be aware, if you aren't already, of how terrible that slur sounds to a Yank.  And profoundly UNfunny.  

[zapatos]

56 minutes ago, swansont said:

It can be both, can’t it? There are a number of comedians who do political satire.

Yes, of course. I just felt that since @mistermack adamantly supported his political statement and made no attempt support his post as a joke, that in this case it was only political.

[John Cuthber]

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

You Brits need to be aware, if you aren't already, of how terrible that slur sounds to a Yank.

What slur?
Are you saying the individuals with guns are not people or are you saying that people are not apes?
If it's the second you are factually incorrect.
If it's the first then ... I'm not the problem round here.

[TheVat]

Wow.

Please please read your reply over in Jokes, explaining this delicate matter.  This is embarrassing.

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Are we conflating humour with satire? 

Satire is (or can be) a form/subset of humor, is it not?

[TheVat]

 

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

What slur?

 

https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/the-disturbing-monkey-business-of-us-blackwhite-race-relations

In the United States, the comparison of black people to apes or monkeys, is a horrible slur, one with a long and sad history.  This is just one link I found on a quick Google search.  Is this really not known in your corner of the globe?  

 

 

 

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, of course. I just felt that since @mistermack adamantly supported his political statement and made no attempt support his post as a joke, that in this case it was only political.

They also said “It can be both” so I think that counts as an attempt.

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

They also said “It can be both” so I think that counts as an attempt.

In the post I was referring to he made no mention that "it can be both". The "it can be both" statement came in a later post.

[StringJunky]

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Satire is (or can be) a form/subset of humor, is it not?

It overlaps, but satire can be devoid of it and still be satire. Swift's A Modest Proposal  is one. It is not a required component to qualify. You seem to be tapdancing with your clause in brackets, are you not going to commit yourself that it is or isn't?

Edited February 9, 2023 by StringJunky