Thread: What's cool with humor and what's not?

LOL you really got me with that picture, thanks for posting!

Well, the boundaries of humor are arbitrary, of course. Personally, I don't think humor should be sought at the expense of other people's suffering. I mean, a jab every now and then is ok, but I think something like (just to use an example) getting a laugh out of making an "I did it for the lulz" poster out of a man that held his daughter and children captive for 24 years, and repeatedly raped them, is just bad form.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Well, the boundaries of humor are arbitrary, of course. Personally, I don't think humor should be sought at the expense of other people's suffering. I mean, a jab every now and then is ok, but I think something like (just to use an example) getting a laugh out of making an "I did it for the lulz" poster out of a man that held his daughter and children captive for 24 years, and repeatedly raped them, is just bad form.

Umm, now I feel bad.

Shock humour, humour that pushes the boundaries of what we would consider tasteful and distasteful, is an interesting one.

Shock humour works on a variety of levels, it is risque and daring, and often highly ironic. We find ourselves gripped by a morbid pleasure derived from mocking the 'untouchable'.

I'll admit I favour shock humour. I think it's important that we should be confident enough in our morals and principles to say, "I'm not laughing at this because I think raping your daughter is okay".

It is important to draw a line when it comes to actually offending people - you would not, for example, tell such a joke to the victims themselves. That would be distasteful.

But if you look at shock humour with intelligence, and can accept that you are not letting it demean the severity of the subject in question, then you should be able to enjoy it.

Originally Posted by Siиdяed

Shock humour, humour that pushes the boundaries of what we would consider tasteful and distasteful, is an interesting one.

Shock humour works on a variety of levels, it is risque and daring, and often highly ironic. We find ourselves gripped by a morbid pleasure derived from mocking the 'untouchable'.

I'll admit I favour shock humour. I think it's important that we should be confident enough in our morals and principles to say, "I'm not laughing at this because I think raping your daughter is okay".

It is important to draw a line when it comes to actually offending people - you would not, for example, tell such a joke to the victims themselves. That would be distasteful.

But if you look at shock humour with intelligence, and can accept that you are not letting it demean the severity of the subject in question, then you should be able to enjoy it.

That is in fact very well put and resonates with my thoughts on this subject.

You have to think about who your audience is. Here on the forum, there is a target audience and then there is also the general audience who could happen to stumble across your comments. What is perceived as humor depends upon the proprietary boundaries of your audience.

To people with a morbid/twisted sense of humor, that may be perceived as humorous. However, the general audience - of which I am a part - may feel that trying to add a little quip to a now notorious torturer is in bad taste. Under different circumstances, that picture might have the appropriate shock value to get a desired response, but I do not find it funny.

Originally Posted by Siиdяed

Shock humour, humour that pushes the boundaries of what we would consider tasteful and distasteful, is an interesting one.

Shock humour works on a variety of levels, it is risque and daring, and often highly ironic. We find ourselves gripped by a morbid pleasure derived from mocking the 'untouchable'.

I'll admit I favour shock humour. I think it's important that we should be confident enough in our morals and principles to say, "I'm not laughing at this because I think raping your daughter is okay".

It is important to draw a line when it comes to actually offending people - you would not, for example, tell such a joke to the victims themselves. That would be distasteful.

But if you look at shock humour with intelligence, and can accept that you are not letting it demean the severity of the subject in question, then you should be able to enjoy it.

Well said. I can see both sides of the issue, though. To some, it could be nothing more than "tongue in cheek" humor, as you implied - as if to say: "I'm not laughing at the situation, but, rather, the creative comedy I have created with the situation as being the inspiration." To others, though, it comes down to the question: "Is nothing sacred?"

It is just a matter of preference. Telling the joke to the victims is, in essence, not all that different than telling the joke to those that empathize with the victims. To many, it is still exploitation of an event or idea that deserves a little more respect than to be turned into a punchline.

[Edit: Or...in other words: "What Ame said^" ]

It's not funny.

That's not to say tragedies can't be the subject of humour, though:

I don't get it. What's VT Hokies?

Ohhh Virginia Tech.


That's pretty clever

The OP's picture was fail. There are far better examples of intelligent shock humour.

Agree with O, and vaguely Ame, except for personal tastes. I find most shock humour to be humorous, so long as it is intelligently done.
Clumsy shock humour rarely works.

It was used to illustrate a point, as it is pertaining to a recent event.

Mmm. And it succeeded in doing so.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Well, the boundaries of humor are arbitrary, of course. Personally, I don't think humor should be sought at the expense of other people's suffering. I mean, a jab every now and then is ok, but I think something like (just to use an example) getting a laugh out of making an "I did it for the lulz" poster out of a man that held his daughter and children captive for 24 years, and repeatedly raped them, is just bad form.

Seconded.

I agree with O' and Ame. Usually, it depends on who the funniness is towards, and who made it. And yes, there is a limit to humor. Would you wear a T-shirt with that picture on it to a restaurant? I wouldn't. If it was in a controlled audience, for a TV MA show, maybe, just MAYBE it would be accepted, but other than that...no.

Example of shock humour that is generally mild:

Borderline for a general community.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Example of shock humour that is generally mild:

I deleted that, last time it was posted, but I will leave it, considering the subject matter of this thread, just to see how it is received.

Personally, I believe it's completely tasteless, and shows an inability to find humor other than in that which provokes negativity from the general audience. But that's just my opinion.

Well it is funny at first when you see it. But then it just becomes tasteless and cruel, really.

Kind of like 4chan.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Example of shock humour that is generally mild:

I know it is horrible, but I laughed. It is probably just because I am 15. I think it is wrong to make jokes like this though.

If nothing else, there's just nothing even clever or slightly redeeming about it. It makes no attempt to be creative, or allow you to see passed the tastelessness of it. It's just "Bam! We know dead cats are probably shocking, so here: FREE CAT!!"

At the very least, it's a bad example.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Example of shock humour that is generally mild:

Hmmm....interesting. I'm an animal lover that won't even EAT animals, and this is humorous to me. Weird.

Am I cool now?

The others involved people so I'm sure if it got back around to the victims it would suck, but it doesn't offend me personally. The initial pic actually caused me to laugh a little which is a rarity.

The cat one didn't really bother me... it didn't make me laugh either, though...

It caused me to think about the circumstance that would allow someone time to go out and make a sign, and thought that the cat must've have been an eyesore on a busy road for some time and it was done more in a way as to draw attention enough to get someone to finally take care of it...

That's just how I think, though.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

It caused me to think about the circumstance that would allow someone time to go out and make a sign, and thought that the cat must've have been an eyesore on a busy road for some time and it was done more in a way as to draw attention enough to get someone to finally take care of it...

That's just how I think, though.

Right.

And actually when I first saw it, I thought the whole thing was photoshopped because it seemed unlikely to me that someone would go out of their way to do that.