Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I'll pose that question in a more direct way- when you see a joke and you don't laugh, when (if ever) is it right to say "that's not funny" as opposed to simply "I didn't find that funny"?

The more I think about it, the more I think that comedy is 100% subjective. You can go back and forth all day thinking about it logically, but that's all you're going to get. Not to mention the fact that peoples' sense of humor change over time as well, so being objectively funny is simply unfathomable.

There are some general principles you can apply: ex humor typically comes from the unexpected, so repeating the same joke over and over again will typically get less of an effect.

Well yeah, but that also applies to everything enjoyable ever. I'm just talking about what makes the initial joke funny.

Every person has it's own taste in humour. So yeah, it's very subjective. Especially dark comedy.

For example: one would laugh even at the darkest things on this world and another one would frown ever more even at the most lighthearted joke.

Humor can go completely over even the most intelligent person's head. The time when one should say that's not funny is usually when it becomes a case of "we're not laughing with you we're laughing at you" kind of thing. The line between what is putting someone or a group down and what is humorously criticizing a person or group is hard to define though. I'd suppose what I'm saying is when the joke's intent is not to criticize but instead to simply put a group/individual down, that is when it should be said it's not funny. That, or if you're trying to improve a person's comedy skills in which case pointing out what joke isn't particularly funny would be a good thing. Or at least those are all my thoughts on the matter off the top of my head.

This is actually the sole reason I don't take people seriously when they get irritated when I make a joke. So I do it deliberately to make people angry.

I actually did a research paper on this (it was my topic in a research papers 101 class) and while there are a lot of theories about humor, both contemporary and historical, there's still no fullproof totally flawless explanation for why things are funny or not. The most popular one right now basically argues that, in the right context, if your brain sets you up to expect something, and then the result is different from what you expected, then your brain deals with it by finding it funny. The bigger the difference, the funnier the result. And by correct context, it has to be non-threatening and some other conditions we haven't perfectly narrowed down yet, since this same difference of expectations can result in fear, suprise, or even sadness, depending on the context.
So yeah, I guess you could argue that it's possible to argue how funny something is by how far from that person's expectations the punchline was, if we knew what other conditions were prerequisite so that stuff that made people feel stuff like fear, sadness, surprise, etc. weren't counted, nor were anything out of left field that weren't actually funny at all.

I would say that at the very least 90% (if not all) of comedy is subjective. I don't think there is a single joke that everybody will find funny. Like I like Jeff Foxworthy but some people think he's kind of boring. Same with other comedians, like Anthony Jeselnik and Daniel Tosh. Most people I know like Dave Chapelle, but I'm pretty sure there are people that don't find him that funny.

Like I remember one time a friend of mine linking me a guro (if you don't know it, I wouldn't go out of your way to look it up) picture of a guy having sex with a decapitated head through the neck. I thought it was pretty disturbing, regardless of context. She thought it was hilarious and couldn't stop laughing.

Then there's shows like Happy Tree Friends where it's basically cute animals being tortured and murdered horribly. I love dark humor, but I never really liked that show. I have friends that like that kind of stuff though, and I dunno if I'll ever really understand why.

Then again, there are shows like Tom and Jerry where it brings slapstick to it's most basic roots. I haven't run into anyone yet that says they hate Tom and Jerry, and even in places like Japan it's fairly popular (in a poll for the best anime in Japan Tom and Jerry is the only western cartoon to appear on the list). There's a theory that all comedy is based on misery, and I think it might be right.

Most of it is subjective. We're dealing with an abstract concept, so there is no final word on what is and is not funny. There are a few things we can observe, however. Comedy often comes from a place of darkness. Humorists will exorcise their inner demons by making light of them, turning them from something troublesome to something laughable. See the collective works of John Callahan for a crash course on that phenomenon. So, when asking yourself if provocative material is funny or just offensive, it's important to consider the intent of the comedian. This doesn't mean that comedians should never be criticized for anything they say. I once heard a good rule of thumb from Phil Lamar, who was talking about how Michael Richards ruined his career. Lamar waved his hand near his stomach and said, "If something is THIS offensive," he raised his hand above his head, "it better be THIS funny. There's no real humor in calling a black guy a nigger without any further context."

Personally, I've always thought that humor was completely subjective.

Subjective doesn't mean free pass. Nothing is too subjective to avoid criticism IMHO.

For me, the best humour takes itself seriously. Offensive humour is most likely extremely low-hanging fruit and gets stale quickly.

Too often, someone will crack a slur and when others don't take it kindly will shout "IT'S JUST A JOKE". People like this I find intellectually dishonest.

I believe proof is found in the fact that I find this serious debate to be a complete joke.

Well, in response, I luckily just happened to have this in my pocket.

Yeah, it's not like words are given meaning to help us communicate what is going on!

Most words are not "given meaning". They acquire meaning over time, and are always subject to change.
But really, how is this a rebuttal at all?

I could say the same about your previous comment.

Thanks for complimenting my hair by the way. You may have said something else, but I'm free to interpret it however I want. Words are subjective, amiright?

Do you really believe there's no such thing as context in language?

No.

There is context in language. Historical context is why people tend to get upset about slur words.

Assuming that a certain word can no longer be offensive tomorrow if everyone agrees it means something else does not take into account what is has meant throughout history. It is a one-dimensional view.

Ignoring history isn't a one dimensional view, it's ignoring a person intent and taking every word they spat out as face value is a one dimensional view.

Assuming that people can automatically deduce your intent is a one-dimensional view.

Believing in the just-world is a one-dimensional view.

EDIT: I dare say that specific historical contexts behind words are the precise reason everyone won't shrug off their meaning tomorrow and unanimously agree they are inoffensive.

So you're saying you can't do things like listen to their tone of voice or manerisms? You think people should get upset over every single use of a certain word and let it hold power over them?

What?

No no no… "historical context" is what you consider when you see a word said by someone in the past. It is the context based on the historical frame of reference. Using that to try and figure out what someone means when they say a word today is just ludicrous. Do you have any idea how much of the language you and I are using right now comes from a seemingly senseless origin?

Definitely not online. I think I am good at sensing tone, but I cannot trust other people to communicate their emotions all of the time. Other people might not be able to sense tone being communicated to them.

Besides, if you call someone a slur ironically, you're still calling them that slur. Better to find a new word in the pool of 1,000,000+ than argue over semantics online.

Or only use these words on people you know will interpret it how you wish, like joking around with friends. If you call a random person a "n*gger" in conversation and then act surprised when they are offended, the fault is on you, not them.

Humour is 100% subjective. All people have different tastes.