ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]

<< < (336/1174) > >>

Arizona Hot:


Paraprosdokian Fun

IainB:
Here's an idea.. let's try not injecting politics into every thread.
Some tips:
Let's say you find yourself on a thread that has nothing to do with politics and you find yourself writing a post that is insulting to some political figure or party, or some religion.
Just as your about to click post, instead close the browser and go have a snack and take a break, and come back when you can resist the urge to make that post.
Or post it in the basement, or on some other forum.  Or tell it to your friends.  Or whatever.
Just resist injecting political/religious insults into a thread that has nothing to do with them.
-mouser (May 28, 2013, 06:04 PM)
--- End quote ---

   Was that seeming digression directed at me? Did you want to address that in this thread? If it was, and if you do, then my reply would be along these lines:

* (a) To "political": that, if you are implying that the "Bush and Condoleezza battle plan" is a "political" joke, then I have to say that I do not see how it fits the definition of "political" at all. For example (my emphasis):
political
· adj.
1 of or relating to the government or public affairs of a country. Ø interested in or active in politics.
(Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th Ed.)

--- End quote ---
(So my calling that last joke "political" was in itself a joke - we are in the "silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]", after all.)    ;)
   
   On the contrary, the only thing that could be construed as being "political" about it was that it mentioned the White House and names of US politicians, but you could put it in another country/time and change the names of the actors and it would still be amusing because it is classic black humour/satire about war and the inconvenient but civilised artificial constraints (e.g., minimising civilian casualties) that some Western warmongers peacemakers have to operate within.
   It would not be correct to call it insulting or disparaging, though there is presumably always the possibility that people who were "right-thinking" censors or overly sensitive or PC might infer that it was - for example, in places such as (say) the old USSR, or Iran or Egypt, where it could be a bit like walking on eggshells and you might find yourself up in court and sentenced to prison or being hung in doublequick time for risking saying/doing anything that could in any conceivable way be interpreted as being critical of the President or ruling Party.
   
   In any event, I am somewhat at a disadvantage here as you made your last post without answering the genuine question that I posed, viz: Which was the "political post"?
   I really was not entirely sure what you were referring to, you see, as I couldn't see that my posting the pictures of the "US presidents in uniform" (copied from a US website somewhere) was political. Was it insulting? No.
I reckoned that the picture itself was childish and disrespectful - but that's no sin - and rather amusing as regards the last two pictures - Clinton and Obama, who both look rather silly. At least it was not as unnecessarily unkind as the "Reagan in drag" picture that someone else posted afterwards.
   
   Generally speaking, I am apolitical  and regard all politicians and their religio-political ideologies and systems for controlling/"governing" people with equal disdain, but am always very interested to understand how they got to be the way they were - e.g., including such as Slavery, Serfdom/Monarchy, Democracy, Fascism, Nazism, Secularism, Roman Catholicism (non-secular rule - e.g., as in Early Europe and the Vatican City), Islamism (non-secular rule - e.g., as in the Caliphate concept), Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Liberalism, Conservatism, and others.
   If I have any bias it is not so much for any particular system(s) but rather for the critical-rationalist and pragmatic approach (i.e., "What seems to have worked well in fact?"), but always based on sound theory and a few principles - including first and foremost, truth, reason, love and freedom.
I do not insult
   Thus, I would not usually recommend, follow or criticise any particular politician, party or party line for what they are per se, but rather for what they have done and whether they had fewer identifiable flaws than the others, given the above approach.
   None of these things (or flaws) are beyond criticism, and always I would be able to see the human silliness and the often accidental humour in these things, and will point them out - warts an' all - if it seems relevant to making a valid point in the context of a given discussion.
   And there are so many flaws - but that is merely because we operate on artificial frameworks of reference constructed by us fallible humans. To paraphrase an old children's song:
      "Anything I can do, God can do better.
   God can do anything better than me.
   Yes he can. No he can't.
   Yes he can. No he can't.
   Yes he can. Yes he can. Yes he can!"
   _____________________________
--- End quote ---
   
   
* (b) To "insulting to some political figure or party, or some religion":
   That is a rather wide net to cast. Again, was this directed at me? I do not recall being unnecessarily or wrongly insulting/libellous/slanderous about any political figure, party, or religion - or at least, probably no more so than others on this forum, and more probably less (e.g., see thread link below). Certainly I do not make spurious political/religious insults as you would seem to be suggesting.
I suggest that you may need to get your facts right, and I would point to the thread referred to below as a good starting-point in my case. You may be surprised to find that you might owe me an apology.
I generally try to speak with reason and to the truth of the matter. Sometimes the truth may be unwanted. I expect others to speak with reason and to the truth as well - for example, when I defended a class of practitioners of one religion (Islamic imams) when they seemed to be being smeared by one party in a discussion in the DC forum: (I detest the use of logical fallacies and especially ad hominem attacks)
      …
   It would not be correct to call this a good example of a valid argument - for anything, really.
   Furthermore it is a smear - i.e., it makes an easy and deliberately unsubstantiated and fundamentally offensive allegation about the Mullahs - one which they are not here to defend themselves from. Regardless of what our opinion might be regarding Islamists, we do not know whether this allegation is true nor, if it is true, then to what extent it is true.
   …
__________________________
   -IainB (November 08, 2011, 07:21 PM)
--- End quote ---
    - and no, I didn't "report it to the moderator" - didn't see any need to, being quite capable of confronting the irrationality on my own, and so I addressed it in a rational and matter-of-fact manner, and without "putting anyone down".
   
   Otherwise it is possible that I might have made some well-founded criticisms or jokes, or identified some irrationality (it's not difficult!) in regard to those things, but inevitably and always to make a point - hurtful though it may have been to those who might have identified themselves with the things being analysed/critiqued.
   What can I say? I am surely not responsible if some people seem unable to accept reason or the truth about their pet foibles and and seem to be unable to take responsibility for thinking critically for themselves.
   Whilst we often cannot  control what happens to us in life, how we respond to those things is largely a matter of choice. "Taking offence" or "feeling insulted/hurt" would be a matter of choice, but it certainly is not a valid reason for avoiding taking responsibility for the (ir)rationality of your paradigms, or for setting fire to the odd witch or two. 
   ____________________________
      Similarly, I do not choose to feel offended by your comments, if they were indeed directed at me. However, I would take issue with them and - if they are serious - especially with the context and manner of their ad hoc delivery in the NSFW funnies section.
   I always wait for reason to prevail, but, if you really intend what you seem to be saying here, then I would suggest that as the MC you could do a lot worse than put your gratuitous advice (above) on these things, together with your gratuitous advice for "political" posts, as a set of definitive guidelines for posting for us all in the forum - e.g., as you seem to have started to do in the Basement section. (Or have you already done those things?)    :tellme:
You could post the guidelines in a pinned topic, so everybody would be able to easily find and familiarise themselves with the guidelines.
   
   It occurred to me that, if you didn't possess the patience or the intestinal fortitude to complete this tedious but perhaps necessary administrative task, then you could probably take a shortcut and at the same time relieve yourself of responsibility for doing it, by saying you had to do it "to align with the UN Constitution", or something, so the UN could then shoulder all the blame. As mentioned in the above thread reference, for some time now, the UN have apparently been working on defining a new world crime of "causing offence to or insulting a religion or a person's religious beliefs" or something, so you might be able save yourself some time and crib the wording of the text of whatever draft they may already have, and cobble something up together with a suitably ambiguously definition for "political" (say). I don't have the UN link, but you should be able to find it easily enough if you google it.
   If you were indeed aiming your comments at me, then I would have to object to the manner of being publicly stigmatised in the forum, apparently for no specific or valid reason, by being singled out quite unnecessarily and selected for this form of ad hoc homily, but I presume you did it so that people could see what you were saying and what my reply might be - though that by no means justifies it.

   By all means take responsibility as the MC and tell me to (say) "make no more posts" or something, or ban me from the forum altogether - whichever you would prefer. If you asked me, I might consider (say) just sticking to doing/maintaining the mini-reviews (which I quite enjoy doing and which you have paid me handsomely and quite unexpectedly for) and you could ban me from discussion on anything that could even remotely be considered as tendentious or upsetting to those of a highly sensitive or nervous disposition or with strongly-held religio-political ideologies/beliefs in fragile paradigms that might not be able to withstand reasoned scrutiny in daylight.

   In any event, I reckon that a good old-fashioned public witch-burning might be in order and could be just the ticket to help restore things to their former, whatever-passed-for-normal levels of rationality, and to let any aggrieved persons on DCF project and release their pent-up frustrations at being unable to substantiate or really believe their savaged/wounded beliefs/opinions.
Deliverance! Vindication! What could be a better release?   :tellme:
From panto days, I have a witch's costume, a ghoulish-green papier-maché mask with a warty nose, some rope and a papier-maché stake, and lots of fiery-looking flickery sparkled papers that look like flames when you shake them, all of which I keep for just such times of foul heresy. I have been set fire to (figuratively speaking) on many occasions, so I'm your man/witch of the moment, if you want.
We could have the burning held online via webcam, with the whole jolly "bonfire" being staged in the vacant carpark outside my apartment block.
I could offer alcoholic drinks as incentive payment to a friendly "mob" of people from the apartment blocks around and about, who would be well-rehearsed to stand round the fire chanting "Burn witch, burn!" with the appropriate level of hate and anger projected in their voices. It would be a super jape and a great live webinar/webshow.
This could be a rebirth and a cleansing experience for us all, but not necessarily for our livers.

(Please note that this has been posted deliberately and not by accident in the Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content] thread.)

wraith808:
Can we just take this as a learning experience and get back to the silly humor rather than the rationalizations/explanations?  :huh:  We're never going to agree on everything- that's what makes DoCo cool in my book, the ability of such a homogenous group to let things go, and discuss the commonalities rather than argue about the differences.  And to let things go when it seems like we're heading down such a path.  I think that everyone has been on both sides at one point or another.  It takes a community to keep things together.

To help... a gif.

Life Imitates Art



IainB:
Can we just take this as a learning experience and get back to the silly humor...
-wraith808 (May 29, 2013, 09:13 AM)
--- End quote ---
Wot, and not have the witch-burning you mean?    :tellme:
You're being no fun at all.

app103:

-Deozaan (May 29, 2013, 12:02 AM)
--- End quote ---

The Farm Animals edition...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version