RubiksMaster said:
Come on. I can take a joke. Why can't you?
Come on, Rubiks. I can read. Why can't you?
Tiassa said:
Many conservatives actually believe that shit.
Do you realize you quoted the answer to your own question?
Think of it in a politically-neutral sense. There's a crude saying to be heard in pool halls and taverns from time to time; I heard it more when I lived in Oregon than I do in Seattle, though that could simply be the times and not anything specific about the intellectual environment. But the saying said of a young girl with a tight ass and budding breasts, "If she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed." Aside from being a vulgar statement of fact, it is, in fact, a humorously-intended excuse for lusting schoolchildren. A cosmopolitan stereotype holds that in the deep south, the saying goes, "If she's old enough to pee, she's old enough for me."
And it's such a ridiculous phrase, it's generally not worth lecturing someone over. But it's not particularly funny to the people who have lived on the receiving end of that arrangement: some of the people who say such phrases actually believe them.
Around 1990, a community-service class I took in Catholic high school attempted to prepare us for potential challenges we might face in the field, including proper professional conduct if a child revealed some form of abuse. In those lectures it came out that at the time, King County (Seattle), Washington was the third-highest reporting county in the nation for per capita child sexual abuse.
In that sense, there's a reason we don't tell those jokes up here.
The longer answer to your question, including text you didn't quote:
Tiassa said:
It's not particularly humorous ... Many conservatives actually believe that shit. Did you happen to check the infamous red and blue map? Compare the result to the substance of the campaigns, and you'll find what you've posted is actually a stereotype of conservative idiocy. As a joke, it's a "Be Sharp" joke ....
And then, of course, I explained what a "Be Sharp" joke was.
Furthermore, I even explained an historical consideration on such humor:
Tiassa said:
But don't worry, it's not just conservatives I pick on for this. It's the reason I don't like most stand-up comedy. Seinfeld was especially notorious. Routines like "If Dogs Had Pockets" and "Laundry Party" were, in fact, rather quite funny when they first hit the scene. But then there's that whole genre of jokes that, while Jerry didn't invent them, he did draw applause for. The classic example is, I think, a parody of Seinfeld; something about glue not sticking to the bottle. I'm more forgiving of Jerry of late. He can't be held responsible for the idiocy of the audience, although there is a clear lesson to be learned about lowering the bar for sarcasm's sake. After all, among my reading at present is George Carlin's When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops? and several of his jokes are constructed on nonexistent foundations. It's a method of presentation that relies on the sympathies of the ignorant. There is, of course, an answer to why glue doesn't stick to the inside of the bottle: look carefully, and you'll find most glue doesn't stick to the particular material the bottle is made of. Elmer's glue, for instance, isn't that great for plastics. But the irony of the question is cute, and it's easier to laugh than it is to undertake even the most basic considerations of the proposition put before them.
In other words, the joke had some humorous value at one time, but the stereotypes involved are generally moldy. Such definitions lost their comedic value over a decade ago, unless of course you're Dennis Miller.
The problem with such humor in politics today is that, like the glue joke, it's easier to simply chuckle and accept it than it is to think for a few seconds. And were it merely that, it would be fine. But it's not merely that. People
make decisions that affect other people on the basis of these myths.
Deriving what I consider an incorrect conclusion from accurate facts is an expected human condition. But insisting on inaccurate facts in order to pass off shallow presupposition as a factually-derived conclusion is problematic.
But it's okay. If the Bush administration fulfills its vengeance against the Constitution, "middle America" can always blame the Democrats for not doing enough to stop it.
Such is the curse of having better ideas. We can't force people to believe, and it's really hard to explain logic to someone who won't listen.
In the meantime, such stubborn ignorance is dragging down the rest of the country, and the world, with it.
If conservatives want to be perceived as having more to say than just the silliness of that "joke" (that was "right on the money"), they ought to try offering it. People can't buy what's not for sale.
RubiksMaster said:
If every joke had to be "truthful" to be funny, there would be surprisingly few comedians.
Two counterpoints should suffice:
(A) This is not necessarily a bad outcome.
(B) Is it possible that, as nature abhors a vacuum, it might just turn out that comedians tell better jokes?
