1
   

When did people lose their sense of humour?

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 05:02 pm
I lost mine about 1943.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 05:06 pm
Edgar, yours is still far superior to Bernie Mac's. Go trough that old duffel bag of yours. It's in there!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 05:08 pm
I love Bernie. As has already been stated, up their nose with a rubber hose if they can't take a joke.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 06:10 pm
Cheney was a philosopher?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 02:20 pm
REDUX:

Dudes. Relax.

Quote:
I thought it was pretty damn funny, like clear-the-air funny. If anyone takes it seriously, you can laugh at them too.

"It's a-I say-it's a joke, son."(Aside) "Boy's kinda slow."


Quote:
I guess I agree with the point that as it is this cartoon is to easily misrepresented by the rightards and the fact that it's a joke could have been more effectively communicated. I still think it's pretty funny though.


Quote:
There are way too many people desperately LOOKING for any excuse to feel insulted.

Its tragic really.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 08:00 am
Quote:
Barack Obama magazine flap shows an irony deficiency

The New Yorker's cover illustration has sparked a flurry of outrage among the Democrat's supporters. Hey, people, it's a joke!

By JAMES RAINEY
July 15, 2008

We've already scratched thrift, candor and brevity off the list of virtues in this presidential cycle, so why not eliminate humor too?

That seems to be the fondest wish of a few commentators and legions of Internet blatherers, who spent much of Monday vilifying New Yorker magazine for this week's cover, which depicts Barack and Michelle Obama as a couple of gun-toting, flag-burning, America-hating terrorists.

It seemed fairly obvious to me, my 8-year-old and, likely, the majority of readers of one of America's finest magazines that the cover drawing by Barry Blitt was a parody. In other words (for those still struggling with the concept), the joke was not on the Obamas but on the knuckle-walkers who would do them harm by trying to turn a couple of fresh-scrubbed Harvard Law grads into something foreign and scary.

Yet online discussion boards from coast to coast overflowed with anger and despair [..]. A grass-roots organizer in Chicago named Mark S. Allen made his complaint to one of the Chicago Tribune's blogs.

"I will NEVER purchase or read The New Yorker Magazine again!!" mewled Allen. "I found your current cover on the Obamas extremely insulting, hurtful, racist and not worthy of the reward of my continuing to purchase The New Yorker."

That was mild compared to the shame that Chuck-in-Wichita heaped on the New Yorker via his comment to the Los Angeles Times' politics blog, Top of the Ticket. Chuck failed "to see the humor in that rag they call a magazine." Not content to merely boycott the magazine, he pledged "to never even visit New York, let alone live there."

But it was not only the general public that fumed. Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard Parks, running for L.A. County supervisor, woofed on cable TV about the outrage of it all.

Chicago Tribune columnist/blogger Eric Zorn gave notice that he is waiting for the magazine to launch an equal-ink takedown depicting John McCain as "about 150 years old and spouting demented non-sequiturs in the middle of a violent temper tantrum while, in the corner, his wife is passed out next to a bottle of pills."

Actually, someone who has maintained a little more perspective already obliged. David Horsey, the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, riffed on the Blitt illustration with a McCain portrait of his own.

Horsey's image shows a drooling, wheelchair-bound McCain, singing "Bomb bomb bomb -- bomb bomb Iran," as wife Cindy pours dozens of pills from a vial and implores her husband, "Take some of my meds to get through the inaugural parade!"

Playing off the New Yorker cartoon, in which an Osama bin Laden portrait adorns the Oval Office, an American flag aflame in the fireplace, Horsey poses the McCains in front of a Dick Cheney portrait, their fire burning a copy of the Constitution.

Lest anyone miss the point, the cartoonist dedicates the piece to all those "irony-challenged literalists who were upset by the New Yorker's Obama-as-a-Muslim magazine cover."

That's coming from a self-described progressive who has put a world of hurt on President Bush but who said in an interview that he sees a disturbing "lack of irony or sense of humor" among some Obama supporters. [..] "It's like they need a flashing light saying, 'It's a joke,' or they lose the capacity to judge," Horsey said. [..]

If Barry Blitt is anything, it's brilliantly provocative. The New Yorker artist sent up the furor over gays in the military by playing off a famous end-of-World-War-II photo: Instead of a sailor and a pretty girl in amorous embrace, he drew two male sailors doubled over in a lip-lock.

A few years back, Blitt spoofed the idea of President Bush as a maid -- complete with apron and feather duster -- to the shadow president, a scowling, cigar-smoking Cheney.

In March, no one seemed to mind when Blitt had Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama in the same bed (maybe there is progress?), both in their pajamas and lunging to be the one to answer that proverbial 3 a.m. phone call on some global crisis.

Obama's supporters are desperately afraid, and not without cause, that his image and record will be distorted.

The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar took the New Yorker to task for providing an image that plays into all the reactionary stereotypes of "anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism."

But those who are going to fantasize about the Obamas as jihadists or un-American won't rely on a simple drawing. They'll recycle old pictures of the senator in African robes, or rely on some creative YouTube splicing.

The Obama campaign felt it had to reject the New Yorker cartoon as "tasteless and offensive." The McCain camp quickly reached the same verdict. Obama was the one man capable of putting the "furor" in its proper context. But he didn't. [..]
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 08:19 am
I've been reading lately--most recently in The New York Times--that late night talk show hosts--Leno, Letterman, Conan etc.--are having trouble finding ways to make jokes re Barack Obama. So many topics re Obama have been declared off limits, and it is unforgivable if a joke should include any hint of race. The writer characterized it that there is simply nothing about Obama to make fun of. (Anybody who buys that, I still have that assortment of bridges to sell.)

Maybe that should be included as one of the components on Snood's "Fear of a Black President" thread: we won't be allowed to criticize or make fun of a President who is black lest we be accused of racism.

And that would indeed be unfortunate both for him and for us.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 08:55 am
The New Yorker cartoon shows an American flag burning in Obama's fireplace. That is not a racist joke but was offensive to Obama supporters for other reasons. The editors are out of touch in assuming that everyone would understand that their target is actually people who spread rumours about Obama. If a joke requires endless explanation than it is not really that funny. If there are no laughs, then we are left with a bunch of offensive images.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 08:57 am
It's pretty clear that they're making fun of the "terrorist fist-jab" commentators.

But there's always the 10% factor. 10% of people won't get it no matter what.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 09:04 am
As the NYT piece said, they make fun of people around Obama, his supporters, and his critics, but they don't touch him because it seems to be an unwritten law that you don't make jokes about Barack Obama. The very little bit that Leno and Letterman have tried have not been well received by Obama supporters who apparently have no sense of humor whatsoever.

The New Yorker magazine was gross and yes, offensive, if taken seriously. But it was no worse than other magazine covers portraying other prominent personalities in very unflattering terms. No outrage earlier. Only when the target is Obama.

Again, I don't think his supporters are doing him any favors with that kind of attitude. Inability to poke fun at oneself is not a particularly endearing trait in American culture.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 09:07 am
DrewDad wrote:
It's pretty clear that they're making fun of the "terrorist fist-jab" commentators.

But there's always the 10% factor. 10% of people won't get it no matter what.


Most people are not familiar with the "terrorist fist-jab" commentators. This goes beyond the 10% factor. The point of the cartoon is not obvious and requires too much explanation to be "funny".
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 09:12 am
I'm pretty sure the "terrorist fist-jab" comment has be pretty thoroughly ridiculed in popular culture.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 09:26 am
wandeljw wrote:
The editors are out of touch in assuming that everyone would understand that their target is actually people who spread rumours about Obama.

How is it the New Yorker's responsibility to only publish jokes that the whole American population would get? New Yorker readers got it, I'm sure.

It will be a dull day when even intelligent magazines will censor themselves to avoid ever publishing something that not "everyone would understand". We'll be left with nothing but the blandness of David Letterman. Sad

wandeljw wrote:
If a joke requires endless explanation than it is not really that funny. If there are no laughs, then we are left with a bunch of offensive images.

Didnt require any explanation to me. Didnt require any explanation to 90% of the posters here, I'm sure. And I laughed - or rather, smiled, it's a wry kind of humour. I'm sure many other readers did too. I thought it was a funny caricature of the madness you see on rightwing blogs.

So then the question is, should people like me have been deprived of that smile because some other people - people who dont even read or buy the New Yorker in the first place - aren't smart enough to understand what it was a caricature of? (I.e., of the rumours, not of Obama himself?)

The New Yorker's job is not to make sure every American will understand and appreciate its jokes. It doesnt dumb down its articles so everyone will read them either. Its job is to produce content that its readers will appreciate. I'm sure its readers understood the cartoon fine. Hell, I'm sure a majority of Americans who would look at a political magazine in the first place got it.

So maybe not the other half of Americans. Fine with me. The day that even the most intelligent American publications feel that they shouldnt make any jokes that arent immediately clear to a majority of Americans will be a dumb day.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 09:29 am
One reason that cover is not funny, it provides an image to be added to the other smear emails. To me, it seems almost certain the same bastards circulating the Obama smear emails will use it. There are more than a handful of people so frightened and ill informed they will accept it for accurate and send copies to friends and acquaintances in endless circles.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 09:42 am
edgarblythe wrote:
One reason that cover is not funny, it provides an image to be added to the other smear emails. To me, it seems almost certain the same bastards circulating the Obama smear emails will use it. There are more than a handful of people so frightened and ill informed they will accept it for accurate and send copies to friends and acquaintances in endless circles.


Edgar,

It seems to me that just because there is a seemingly endless fount of ignorance to be found in the US populace, that's no reason to dumb things down.

Those bastards will remain stupid ignorant bastards and if and when it's pointed up to them just what stupid ignorant bastards they are, it will likely only serve to move them deeper into stupidity and ignorance.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 09:50 am
I don't consider opposition to the cover dumbing things down. No matter the motivation for creating it, it feeds irrational fear.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 09:51 am
Those who believe those e-mails will certainly be happy to embroider them with the caricature, yes. But people who believe the emails already believe however irrational or ignorant that may be. A satirical cover on New York Magazine is not going to sway anybody's opinion about Barack Obama or change a single vote.

Nimh is absolutely right. Most people intelligent enough to appreciate New York Magazine got the satire. Those who aren't familiar with New York Magazine didn't. It wouldn't be clever satire or funny if it has to be explained to people. Had I elected to use the cover, I would have added sufficient caption to alert the slower folks among us to the basis of the satire--for instance if they had captioned it "The Politics of Fear", it would have been less provocative.

Those for instance who have been following the whole flap over the Brandenburg Gate will get the satire here:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz071508dAPR.jpg

Those who haven't, won't understand it.

But again, an inability to poke fun at ourselves is not an endearing trait in American culture.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 10:14 am
The New Yorker is sold everywhere not just New York. If the humor or the point is not easily understood, it would have been better to put the cartoon inside the magazine not on the cover.

90% of the posters here "get" the joke, but these posters follow political commentary closely. Most people ignore political commentary.

(I myself "get" the joke but it is not funny enough to be recognized as a joke by most people. Again, I believe the cartoon could be inside the magazine, but should not be on the cover.)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 10:21 am
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20080715/cartoon20080715.gif

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 10:34 am
I remember not getting all the New Yorker drawings when I was ten. But I've grown up and grown old with that magazine and widened the scope of my understanding over time. Seems to me that is the magazine's function.

I don't always agree with the NYer editorial commentary or all its articles/poems/drawings, but there is usually grist there for thought. And so it goes with several other magazines of varied editorial views but competent articulation of them.

To me, the country can just step up and learn a bit about the nature of satire.

Fiddle dee dee with all the "you can't say this, you can't say that" in the press just about every other day now. More time on the issues - we in the US have enough of those to cogitate on.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oddities and Humor - Discussion by edgarblythe
Let's play "Caption the Photo" II - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Funny Pictures ***Slow Loading*** - Discussion by JerryR
Caption The Cartoon - Discussion by panzade
Geek and Nerd Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Caption The Cartoon Part Deux - Discussion by panzade
IS IT OK FOR ME TO CHEAT? - Question by Setanta
2008 Election: Political Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 01:50:23