Humour is cruel by definition

[monster]

Discuss

One poster commented that they don't like cruel humour. Isn't all humour cruel at some level? Surely something is being laughed at, and at some point that thing will relate to a person?

Or is the opposite true? Is there no such thing as cruel humour? Are amusement and suffering incongruous intentions, so that something can be either cruel or humourous, but not both?

[Cloud]

Yes, all humor originates in the suffering of others. Heinlein grokked it.

[monster]

So where is the "line of acceptability". Is it a personal thing, variable according to the current PC and personal beliefs and issues? Or is it some measurable point, applicable to all but elusive to the comprehension of many?

[skysidhe]

schadenfreude is the lowest form of humor.


Humor to me is subtle and smart. Sarcasm, wit ,satire and irony.

Originally Posted by monster

So where is the "line of acceptability". Is it a personal thing, variable according to the current PC and personal beliefs and issues? Or is it some measurable point, applicable to all but elusive to the comprehension of many?

I think it is our personal belief systems. Would we accept this IN REAL LIFE? Do we like rauncy British humor? slap-stick?
Shows like Bernie Mac and Scrubs ,Jon Stewart, Ellen DeGeneres are incredibly funny to me. I liked the movie superbad and knocked up but slap stick and schadenfreude eludes me. I don't put people down in the attempt to make others laugh. It's just not my style.

[Flint]

Nothing is less funny than something that tries too hard to be funny. Like when you over-explain a joke, it kills the humor.

You could express this as a formula: if effort "E" is greater than punchline "P" then the comedic index "C" is negative.

As I said, it was too contrived to be comedic. The scenario was distracting.

It didn't have a chance to be funny…the elaborate planning involved ruined that.

This has less to do with the nature of the material than it does the nature of proper delivery. But, yes, it is a personal thing.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Flint

This has less to do with the nature of the material than it does the nature of proper delivery.

The driver of this morning's Metro train absolutely killed. He got a train full of surly commuters to laugh a genuine deep belly laugh. Had to be a few hundred people all laughing. All he said over the PA system was "I don't know." But it was the delivery. He killed.

[DanaC]

It isn't the level of cruelty...it's who is being cruel to whom. It's the power differential, or relationship between the person being cruel and the victim of that cruelty. It's the difference between a practical joke and bullying.

[wolf]

Monster, in one sentence you have explained the appeal of The Three Stooges.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It's the difference between a practical joke and bullying.

The difference could also be in the set-up. It could, potentially, be funny to impulsively trip a co-worker as they walk by (with no pre-meditation); but if, instead, you had spent hours building a booby trap, only to film it knocking down a random passerby, then E (effort) would be greater then P (punchline) causing C (comedic index) to be negative. Also, in this case, the greater part of the joke is the creator of the set-up, not the victim; IE the creator becomes the subject. I should add that the very senselessness of the act could counter-intuitively have a positive, absurdist quality.

[DanaC]

Humour is very subjective. I have friends with what I consider to be quite cruel senses of humour. They're still my friends and sometimes I find them funny. There are times however when I find their humour unpleasant. That's just how I am. Doesn't mean I think I am better than them, just means I have a tendency to relate more closely to the person/creature that has been the butt of the joke, more than I relate to the person who is carrying out the joke. Maybe it's because I spent so many years being the butt of seriously cruel humour as a child attending school with a disfiguring skin condition. Not everyone went though that so maybe they don't have an exaggerated sense empathy in those instances.

We all find different things funny. Our sense of humour is personal and grounded in our life experiences.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by Cloud

Yes, all humor originates in the suffering of others. Heinlein grokked it.

They may be the lowest form of humor, but are puns "cruel"?


Q. What's brown and sticky?

A. A stick.


(Who's suffering now?)

[skysidhe]

lol pie

Originally Posted by Flint

The difference could also be in the set-up. It could, potentially, be funny to impulsively trip a co-worker as they walk by (with no pre-meditation); but if, instead, you had spent hours building a booby trap, only to film it knocking down a random passerby, then E (effort) would be greater then P (punchline) causing C (comedic index) to be negative. Also, in this case, the greater part of the joke is the creator of the set-up, not the victim; IE the creator becomes the subject. I should add that the very senselessness of the act could counter-intuitively have a positive, absurdist quality.

This is almost exactly what I almost posted and didn't.
My example went like this:

Goofball is walking along and another sticks out his foot and trips the poor bastard. People laugh and thinks it's funny. The goofball dosn't think it was. The goofball not only feels like shit because it was a mean spirited. He says so. Part of the on -lookers agree part of them do not.

The ones that find it funny use the very reason they laugh as validation that is was in fact funny dismissing the targets feelings of the contrary.

vs an actually funny one

Goofball goes to church. She wears a dress and somehow the toilet paper gets stuck in the hem and flows out behind her as she leaves the room. Into the hallway she goes until a kind samaritan helps her out. Funny as hell.


oh and I absolutley abhor funny home videos. The above example would lose that funny quality if put on tape.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Pie

Q. What's brown and sticky?

A. A stick.


(Who's suffering now?)

The audience is steered towards thinking about feces, and the joke is that it wasn't feces. The audience is suffering.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

She wears a dress and somehow the toilet paper gets stuck in the hem and flows out behind her as she leaves the room. Into the hallway she goes until a kind samaritan helps her out. Funny as hell.

What if the woman is absolutely mortified at the embarrassment of walking around with toilet paper dangling off of her, and runs back into the bathroom crying? Does it stop being funny as hell for you then?

[elSicomoro]

[humor]Monster, you're in America...fucking spell like one![/humor]