sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:
Well considering they felt the need to 'correct' it, yet didn't change much from what I originally wrote and followed the trend for the majority of it, they either don't realize how much of a 'lie' it really is, or they felt a small portion was untrue and wanted to point it out. A good joke tends to be at least somewhat realistic, and a great joke is extremely believable with an unforeseen punchline.
How many liars who are looking to push lies, come out when questioned and say it was a joke, instead of moving goalposts or spinning to try and keep it alive?
A joke isn't necessarily completely untrue, if untrue at all either btw.
|
Unfortunately, a joke that isn't funny enough (or obvious enough) to communicate that it is in fact a joke is in effect often just a small lie. The fact that there is some semblance of truth there doesn't make the bits that aren't truthful any less of a lie, it just makes them harder to discern from lies.
Further, too often with political "humor" someone will just use straw men as a joke, but the goal is to make those straw men the butt of the joke. Jokes about identifying as attack helicopters for example are in essence just a means of making fun of trans people and trans rights by utilizing a misrepresentation of the overall argument. Even when the joke is obvious, if the point is to criticize, doing so through warping reality is not healthy as it functions as an argument and not just a humor piece.
That said, I'm not talking specifically about your "joke" here. Just talking about the idea of casual political humor as it often gets thrown around on message boards.
|
I disagree, especially based on white lies. Good intentions, but lies nonetheless. Are white lies ok? If so, then a joke that even uses a small 'white' lie to complete it, shouldn't be any different, and that's a lot of jokes. Each person of course may take it differently, the lie in the joke as well as well as white lies, but that's up to them to decide. No joke is meant for everyone.
This has some truth in certain circumstances but they're also making many separate points overall. One of them being, if you're going to allow people to identify themselves however they like because they feel differently than how society labels them, then it's no doubt going to influence others in many different ways and you would have to allow that for the most part. It's like the people who believe certain others shouldn't be given a platform to speak. If you're someone who doesn't like what's being said and the idea's that come from it, and you want a system that allows for free speech to get your own message out to combat the existing narrative so change can be made, you have to allow everyone the option, even if others are going to use it in ways you wish they wouldn't, within reason. This system like any leaves the door open to some degree to be used in ways it wasn't purposely designed for, but that's just part of the deal. Some people agree with this and think absolute free speech is great, others think certain people should be silenced. Some people think you should be able to label yourself in whatever manner best defines you, others think you should just deal with the existing established system. There really is no 100% right or wrong answer when it comes to these types of scenario's unfortunately.
The ... led me to believe you were focusing on what I had said, along with something I had mentioned in an earlier post to someone else, but apparently this was not the case. My mistake. Not everyone takes everything the way it was meant to be.
Currently Online 
