NationStates Jolt Archive

The thread about marking-up someone passed out drunk made me think of this, though I have seen the idea in a couple of science books I have read recently.

Is humour a way of being aggressive to someone but in a socially acceptable way? I was once told by someone that I had an 'oppressive sense of humour' - I was making a joke to a friend that required knowing who Robert Mitchum was in order to understand it, and this person thought I was deliberately being rude because she didn't know who he was (I wasn't actually talking to her she was just listening in). I can also be slightly sarcastic on occasion. So is all humour meant to put someone else down (such as making jokes about the Irish or the Polish) or is there humour that is just fun and victimless?

by and large its just fun, but the majority of jokes tend to involve making fun of someone, but usually everyone involved knows its just for laughs. Only people who take things too seriously are "victimized". Of course there are other kinds of jokes but by and large think the above holds.

Yes, humor can be a way to avoid "face-threatening acts". But not always. That's pretty much what sarcasm is.

I think humor can be a way to channel aggression. I certainly don't think it inherently is - after all, for me, there is a direct correlation between how much I tease someone and how much I like them.

I'm not sure. Most humor happens when society expects one thing, but another thing happens. That's humor. But sometimes humor also happens when society expects one thing, and that one thing happens, but it's still funny. That's also humor. Sarcasm directed against someone is funny because the person is saying one thing, when they really mean the opposite thing. But sometimes a plain insult is also funny, because the person is saying what they really mean, but using funny language or mannerisms to say it. And watching someone get kicked in the crotch is always funny.

This message has been brought to you by the baseless generalization society.

It can be used at such, but I'd say it's more likely that humor defuses aggression rather than allows a person to channel it.

I am not sure. It could be, in some cases. Not all the time, though.

It can be used at such, but I'd say it's more likely that humor defuses aggression rather than allows a person to channel it.

I'd say both, actually. Aggression can be channeled into humour. So can almost any other emotion: despair, fear, love, anger. This both defuses the emotion, and channels it into something useful (and funny). The only emotion that cannot be channeled into humour is emptiness or apathy, because it cannot go anywhere by its very nature, and thus cannot be channeled into anything or rerouted for any purpose.

depends, humour is subjective

The thread about marking-up someone passed out drunk made me think of this, though I have seen the idea in a couple of science books I have read recently.

Is humour a way of being aggressive to someone but in a socially acceptable way? I was once told by someone that I had an 'oppressive sense of humour' - I was making a joke to a friend that required knowing who Robert Mitchum was in order to understand it, and this person thought I was deliberately being rude because she didn't know who he was (I wasn't actually talking to her she was just listening in). I can also be slightly sarcastic on occasion. So is all humour meant to put someone else down (such as making jokes about the Irish or the Polish) or is there humour that is just fun and victimless?

What do you call a fish with no eyes? A fsh.

Fssshhh!

What do you call a man with no shins?

See, I bet someone giggled at that. Unless you're all fish.

The thread about marking-up someone passed out drunk made me think of this, though I have seen the idea in a couple of science books I have read recently.

Is humour a way of being aggressive to someone but in a socially acceptable way? I was once told by someone that I had an 'oppressive sense of humour' - I was making a joke to a friend that required knowing who Robert Mitchum was in order to understand it, and this person thought I was deliberately being rude because she didn't know who he was (I wasn't actually talking to her she was just listening in). I can also be slightly sarcastic on occasion. So is all humour meant to put someone else down (such as making jokes about the Irish or the Polish) or is there humour that is just fun and victimless?

Humor is the reason why I haven't set anyone on fire. *nod*

Fssshhh!

What do you call a man with no shins?

Tony!

Fssshhh!

What do you call a man with no shins?

Shinless Joe Jackson?

No, Tony!

No, Tony!

Ouch, that hurt

Ouch, that hurt

See, proof! Humor really is just disguised aggression!

The thread about marking-up someone passed out drunk made me think of this, though I have seen the idea in a couple of science books I have read recently.

Is humour a way of being aggressive to someone but in a socially acceptable way? I was once told by someone that I had an 'oppressive sense of humour' - I was making a joke to a friend that required knowing who Robert Mitchum was in order to understand it, and this person thought I was deliberately being rude because she didn't know who he was (I wasn't actually talking to her she was just listening in). I can also be slightly sarcastic on occasion. So is all humour meant to put someone else down (such as making jokes about the Irish or the Polish) or is there humour that is just fun and victimless?

Lots of people become 'the clown' because it enables them to survive violence. It's analternative to aggression.

I just found this (http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/humor.htm) on philosophical theories of humour - turns out I am talking about the superiority theory put forward by Plato and Aristotle, we always had a lot in common

I just found this (http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/humor.htm) on philosophical theories of humour - turns out I am talking about the superiority theory put forward by Plato and Aristotle, we always had a lot in common
Philosophers attempts to theorize about humor are complete crap. This makes sense after you've hung out with enough of them, and you discover that they tell the dorkiest jokes imaginable.

Philosophers attempts to theorize about humor are complete crap. This makes sense after you've hung out with enough of them, and you discover that they tell the dorkiest jokes imaginable.

I Kant imagine how that could possibly be the case. Surely they must get at least some Marx for thinking seriously about it?

Humor is the reason why I haven't set anyone on fire. *nod*

You should try the latter. It's a lot of fun, too. Especially if they run in circles, waving their arms and screaming.

You should try the latter. It's a lot of fun, too. Especially if they run in circles, waving their arms and screaming.

Think of all those released carbons though. :(

Think of all those released carbons though. :(

Yeah, well I'd have to buy a few carbon credits. But it would be worth it.

Now, in the good old days...

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

I Kant imagine how that could possibly be the case. Surely they must get at least some Marx for thinking seriously about it?

I'm sure puns as bad as these are against the Rawls. Carry on like this I'm sure a mod will be along to Locke the thread. Not to mention that such unfunnyness makes you look a bit of a Burke.

Heh...well at least I got something out of my political philosopy module...

I'm sure puns as bad as these are against the Rawls. Carry on like this I'm sure a mod will be along to Locke the thread. Not to mention that such unfunnyness makes you look a bit of a Burke.

Heh...well at least I got something out of my political philosopy module...

It's more valuable than a philosophy education, anyway. Which I always Sartre was a big Plato of santayana.

There's a big difference between humor, which is neutral and funny, and Schadenfreude, which is funny at someone else's expense and thus aggressive.

There's a big difference between humor, which is neutral and funny, and Schadenfreude, which is funny at someone else's expense and thus aggressive.

What do you call it when I'm aggressive (setting people on fire) and then laughing at them while they burn?

What do you call it when I'm aggressive (setting people on fire) and then laughing at them while they burn?

Hilarious

I think humor can be a way to channel aggression. I certainly don't think it inherently is - after all, for me, there is a direct correlation between how much I tease someone and how much I like them.

Cocktease.

The thread about marking-up someone passed out drunk made me think of this, though I have seen the idea in a couple of science books I have read recently.

Is humour a way of being aggressive to someone but in a socially acceptable way? I was once told by someone that I had an 'oppressive sense of humour' - I was making a joke to a friend that required knowing who Robert Mitchum was in order to understand it, and this person thought I was deliberately being rude because she didn't know who he was (I wasn't actually talking to her she was just listening in). I can also be slightly sarcastic on occasion. So is all humour meant to put someone else down (such as making jokes about the Irish or the Polish) or is there humour that is just fun and victimless?

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Al.

Al who?

I'll kill you! I'll fucking kill you! Die mother fucker AGHGHAHHGAHA!

Aggression is just disguised humor. Aggressive people tend to be the objects of the jokes they don't consciously know they're making.

There is aggressive humor, pantsing someone, writing on someone's face when they pass out at a party, and things like that.

But by and large most humor is not aggressive. As a humorist and a pacifist I try to laugh with people but not at people.

Humor is the reason why I haven't set anyone on fire. *nod*

I could fill a burn ward with people who disagree.

Cocktease.

Awwww. I like you, too. ;)

Awwww. I like you, too. ;)

I can't tease you, because you ladies don't have to put up with it...if I were to try tempt you, you'd just have Neo Art give you the three knuckle shuffle...

I can't tease you, because you ladies don't have to put up with it...if I were to try tempt you, you'd just have Neo Art give you the three knuckle shuffle...

...you might be surprised what I have to put up with. Ask NA when he gets back from his Very Important Lawyer Business (a.k.a. making little toy vampires beat up little toy demons). :p

The thread about marking-up someone passed out drunk made me think of this, though I have seen the idea in a couple of science books I have read recently.

Is humour a way of being aggressive to someone but in a socially acceptable way? I was once told by someone that I had an 'oppressive sense of humour' - I was making a joke to a friend that required knowing who Robert Mitchum was in order to understand it, and this person thought I was deliberately being rude because she didn't know who he was (I wasn't actually talking to her she was just listening in). I can also be slightly sarcastic on occasion. So is all humour meant to put someone else down (such as making jokes about the Irish or the Polish) or is there humour that is just fun and victimless?

Humor is subjective. We can find humor in anything depending on how we choose to look at it. As for your story.... well, Robert Mitchum is an obscure individual to use in a joke. I doubt a lot of younger people are going to know who the f*ck you're talking about. Of course, it depends on the crowd you're with, too. If you're hanging out with film buffs, it's probably well suited. But for someone to randomly whip out a Robert Mitchum joke among the standard run-of-the-mill get togethers is either doing so to feel superior, which makes them a pretentious douchebag, or they think EVERYONE knows who Robert Mitchum is, which makes them an idiot. :D

I've got two simple rules for humour.
1. Everything is somehow funny to someone, in some context. Deal with it.
2. You can laugh at anyone you want, so long as you can laugh at yourself when the time comes.

The former is a personal observation, the latter was taught to me by my father. As far as being a substitute for aggression, well, heaven forbid that instead of going to war we could just exchange "yo mama" jokes with foreign powers.

...you might be surprised what I have to put up with. Ask NA when he gets back from his Very Important Lawyer Business (a.k.a. making little toy vampires beat up little toy demons). :p

I knew it! I knew it!

There's a big difference between humor, which is neutral and funny, and Schadenfreude, which is funny at someone else's expense and thus aggressive.I'm not sure you can qualify schadenfreude as being funny at someone else's expense. Schadenfreude is laughing at someone's misfortune, and usually that misfortune happens by itself. So the "expense" is not made for the fun; the fun is just a freebie for bystanders.
And fun at someone else's expense like making jokes about them behind their back is also no schadenfreude. Nor, I'd say, are most practical jokes (which are invariably at someone's expense) really schadenfreude.
And it can all fit under the class of humor, even if they may be distinct subclasses.

Is humour a way of being aggressive to someone but in a socially acceptable way?

I think that, more accurately, that would be sarcasm.
Humour, imho, includes sarcasm, satire, irony, nonsense, and many other varieties.

In some cases, yes. People sometimes say the most insulting things and then play injured innocence when people get offended, offering the weak excuse, "I was only joking". Then they sometimes get offended when they're told it's not funny, and stomp off in a huff, all the while blaming others for having no sense of humor.

Sometimes.

Well, jokes themselves tend to have their messages. Even a simple pun is making a point about words or phrases having multiple meanings, even if that isn't the intention. So of course humour can be aggressive; why is that a surprise?

What do you call it when I'm aggressive (setting people on fire) and then laughing at them while they burn?
Pathological.

Then again... "Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day, set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life."
I'm not sure you can qualify schadenfreude as being funny at someone else's expense. Schadenfreude is laughing at someone's misfortune, and usually that misfortune happens by itself. So the "expense" is not made for the fun; the fun is just a freebie for bystanders.
Schadenfreude might not be being "funny" at someone else's expense, but it's definitely enjoying someone's misfortune. And while I admit that usually things happen without your doing and one can usually not help but laugh (mind you, "laughter" is also a natural reaction to some situations that ain't funny, a coping mechanism. Much like a monkey showing his teeth when afraid or people sticking out their tongues when insecure/nervous), I'd still consider Schadenfreude to be on the dark side of humor.
And fun at someone else's expense like making jokes about them behind their back is also no schadenfreude.
No, that's just bad taste and lack of character. Good humor can be enjoyed by the person coming up with it and by the people who might be targeted by it, so all can enjoy the comical situation or pun or whatever.
As soon as someone's feelings (or physical inviolability) are violated, it leaves the realms of good (harmless) humor. (Even though you might enjoy taking a shot to the crotch, it doesn't mean that it's good humor in my book. Funny maybe, but not good.)
Nor, I'd say, are most practical jokes (which are invariably at someone's expense) really schadenfreude.
I'd consider them a subcategory of Schadenfreude. After all, it literally means "harm joy", or finding joy in another's misfortune.
And it can all fit under the class of humor, even if they may be distinct subclasses.
I didn't think about my post for too long. If I had, I'd probably come up with a whole system of humor categories.

Nobody else thinks like I do?

Nobody else thinks like I do?
Disappointed or relieved?

Disappointed or relieved?

It was in an earlier post; I always try to laugh with people as opposed to at people, when you are laughing with someone you do no harm; when you laugh at someone you are being cruel.

It was in an earlier post; I always try to laugh with people as opposed to at people, when you are laughing with someone you do no harm; when you laugh at someone you are being cruel.

If its someone who I have been given reason to dislike, I laugh and mock them enthusiastically with great sarcasm, seeking to encourage others to join in. If its someone I like, I'll laugh only with them, having checked they aren't embarrassed by it, and take a strong dislike to anyone who acts in a hostile way towards them.

So, basically, a less pure version of what you said, based on an inherent and probably misguided sense of a battle of "us versus them"

So, basically, a less pure version of what you said, based on an inherent and probably misguided sense of a battle of "us versus them"

Hmm am I us or them?

Hmm am I us or them?

Pff..."us", silly. You've never been in the "them" category. Out of interest, a while back you were briefly in the very narrow no-man's land between "them" and "us", which I like to call "thus", but then you retreated from the dark side and drifted back. If I considered you to be one of "them", you'd sure know about it :p

Pff..."us", silly. You've never been in the "them" category. Out of interest, a while back you were briefly in the very narrow no-man's land between "them" and "us", which I like to call "thus", but then you retreated from the dark side and drifted back. If I considered you to be one of "them", you'd sure know about it :p

Haha ok! *glares at 'them'*

You people just keep to yourselves. You're all alike.

There are many types of humor and many theories about humor. Plato considered humor a threat to (his, proposed) society, and railed against it, on the basis that it was inherently destructive. Others have proposed that humor is a creative, rather than destructive process, or that it's simply an exaggeration of the incongruity between two concepts - a sort of flexibility exercise we play to keep our ability for abstract thought sharp. That's my guess as well. Chimpanzees play peek-a-boo, and even tickle eachother for recreation. Humor exists in us at a very primal level.

You people just keep to yourselves. You're all alike.

You dont hate us, you just hate our culture.

You dont hate us, you just hate our culture.
Just so long as you don't have culture in public.