Bar Bar talks about humor, what makes humor, and why feminists are not funny.

This is a feminist bookstore! There IS no humor section!!!

Sarcasm is the refuge of losers.

Men wield sarcasm with extreme prejudice. Lining up a battalion of facts to decimate their opponents’ defenses and bulls~~~ and then toppling their Saddam like statue of dignity with a cutting sarcastic remark. Women do not. Women didn’t think their being funny UNLESS they are scathingly sarcastic.

First lesson in comedy: “We don’t laugh because it’ FUNNY… we laugh because it’s TRUE”.

In one, sentence that’s why feminists fail to be funny. One of the biggest problems with women and sarcasm is they use it too much. Men know that sarcasm overuse makes one look simple and petulant, but feminists seem to have no problem with that. That’s because women enjoy looking ill-tempered and brackish. They think it empowers them and makes them look interesting while they actually have nothing to offer. That’s why they’re sarcastic as often as f~~~ing possible.

Men are f~~~ing hilarious just by telling the truth.

Chris rock doesn’t need to say anything “funny” he just tell the TRUTH and 50,000 people have tears in their eyes from laughing. But read these words off the page and he didn’t say anything “funny” at all.

Nothing about a feminist is based in reality.
It’s IMPOSSIBLE for her to be funny.

Making fun of one’s self or one’s mistakes can lead to some pretty classic humour. Men are unafraid to illustrate their weaknesses, because they are all too often apparent;  we know our peers can see them most times, and we don’t insult their intelligence by pretending to be something else.

A feminist will not do that.  Her humour will consist entirely of making fun of someone else, or as Keymaster has so eloquently put it, consist entirely of sarcasm directed at someone else.

Women aren’t even comfortable confronting themselves while making a f~~~ing joke.

We were stopped at the light and we weren’t talking about anything. So it was a moment of sitting there and waiting while this homeless person sauntered slowly across the road. She said:

“Damn. I was gonna wear that today.”

It was only “funny” because if you knew her like I did, she read fashion magazines and spent weekends going shoe shopping. She ACTUALLY THOUGHT like that. She would wear something and wonder if anyone else there would be wearing the same thing. And in her mind, this would be a “problem’. Otherwise, if you didn’t know her it’s not funny at all. And it’s not even true. She was “hilarious” but only if she was cutting someone down… to try and make herself look “superior”.

EscapedMentalPatient wrote:

All too often, the funniest anecdotes can be borne of personal failure, whether it be a major or minor event.

Second lesson in comedy: “Humor = Tragedy + Time”.

••••

Men are unafraid of making themselves look ridiculous (or totally unattractive) for a laugh. Modern women are generally TERRIFIED of that. The Queens of Comedy (Lucille Ball and Carol Burnett) had no such fear. “Funny” requires the willingness to turn YOURSELF into joke (like Willy said above). You are the clown. Men lower their status for a laugh all the time. But the only way a modern female / feminist can be “funny” — and maintain her desirability — is to cut someone ELSE down for a laugh. You see it al the time. X1000 for the feminists.

• Be an expression of anger (arguing from authority on this one)
• Make fun of the audience’s perspective – “It’s funny because it’s true…” is more like, “This is how you look at those people, and it’s silly on your part.”
• Demonstrate some moral or some virtue, “Here’s how you fail…”
• Relate. The audience has to believe it enough to be relevant. The audience must relate or it doesn’t matter.
• Push comfort zones.
• Offers unexpected insight.

Feminists fail because:

• They’re not telling the truth about which they are angry. They’re trying to make it look like something else. They’re trying to mock real humans who have emotion. Do you really want to be that kind of person?
• They don’t make fun of the audience’s perspective, or what they’re pointing out is downright untrue. The audience cannot agree. Also, this is them dictating virtue, and that feels patronizing, it’s not easy to get into that. It’s actually harmful because if a person is sensitive, about something, you cannot make fun of them in good nature. Like, if someone has a big nose, and they’re OK with it, you can tease them for it, but if they’re insecure about it, then it hurts. Well, men are made to feel guilty all the time about their sexuality, and that’s where feminists always strike. It worked before, so let’s keep wailing at it.
• What moral do they demonstrate? That it’s wrong to rape? We know that already.
• They don’t even demonstrate a moral failing of the audience. We already know rape is wrong.
• You can’t push a comfort zone if the idea is just stupid. “All monkeys throw poos, get it?” haha, wait. Why am I laughing. I know poo flinging by monkeys is funny, but that doesn’t push my comfort zone.
• I don’t think my b~~~~ are going to shrink into a mangina, nor do I agree false logic reveals a character flaw of these people who do not agree. Take that, Watson. Nor do I think that football played by men for the fun of competition demonstrates the toxic masculinity that leads to rape. It’s not insightful, it’s just illogical. It’s just a chaotic silliness in the head of the silly girl, suffering from a partially psychotic personality disorder (schizotypal maybe?).

Rodney Dangerfield, the guy who’s line was, “I get no respect,” used to be so angry that nobody took him seriously. Then he created his routine. It was a relief of his frustration, but invites us, the audience, to laugh at ourselves for how we look at him. It’s precisely illogical to judge a person for their bulging eyes, and think they’re not mentally competent like we. The insight he offers does demonstrate ridiculous situations that demonstrate constant reminders of the chagrin we face on a daily basis, only he can’t escape them like we can.

I too love to make fun of myself. I tend to be serious and take myself serious. I’m analytical and sometimes I catch my ego beginning to grow again, especially after success. Humor is a way of relieving myself of my ego but relieving myself of my own misery. You know I’m feeling good about myself when I say stuff to make myself sound really stupid, or weird, or just trying to engineer an awkward situation.

Dead baby jokes are never true, but they do push our comfort zones. They’re funny precisely because we feel guilty and shouldn’t laugh. They relieve us the pressure of being so serious about dead babies. Nobody likes dead babies. Pushing people’s comfort zone into considering seriously immoral things like throwing them against a wall while covered in paint to paint the wall is morbid and nobody would think of this. So a joke that makes us picture that is funny for that reason, though we might feel guilty for it afterwards.

How many dead babies does it take to paint a wall? Trick question, it depends on how hard you throw them.

How many feminists does it take to change the world? Depends on how many clever jokes they may make. (OK, I tried.)

The subject of humor, which is difficult because it’s subjective, and yet demonstrates it’s own existence was brought up in the case of Leonard Vs. Pepsi Co. Pepsi Co. made an ad that jokingly said if you get so many Pepsipoints, Pepsi Co. will give you a harrier jet (though legally, it may only be a non-functioning one). Leonard did some math and found out that the jet is more than the points. So he got some investors together to purchase the point necessary to get the jet. Pepsi Co., as you’d expect, told them to go stick it somewhere. Leonard sued.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/1996-man-sues-pepsi-for-not-giving-him-a-harrier-jet/

So the question is, is Pepsi Co. bound to a contract because that was an offer? Was that an offer that Leonard accepted? It must be demonstrated to be a joke evidently so that it can be seen not as an offer but in jest. I thought the decision was surprisingly well written (http://www.classcaster.org/449/10564-Leonard%20v.%20Pepsico.pdf):

3. Whether the Commercial Was “Evidently Done In Jest”

Plaintiff’s insistence that the commercial appears to be a serious offer requires the Court to explain why the commercial is funny. Explaining why a joke is funny is a daunting task; as the essayist E.B. White has remarked, “Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process….” FN11 The commercial is the embodiment of what defendant appropriately characterizes as “zany humor.” (Def. Mem. at 18.)

FN11. Quoted in Gerald R. Ford, Humor and the Presidency 23 (1987).  First, the commercial suggests, as commercials often do, that use of the advertised product will transform what, for most youth, can be a fairly routine and ordinary experience. The military tattoo and stirring martial music, as well as the use of subtitles in a Courier font that scroll terse messages across the screen, such as “MONDAY 7:58 AM,” evoke military and espionage thrillers. The implication of the commercial is that Pepsi Stuff merchandise will inject drama and moment into hitherto unexceptional lives. The commercial in this case thus makes the exaggerated claims similar to those of 10 many television advertisements: that by consuming the featured clothing, car, beer, or potato chips, one will become attractive, stylish, desirable, and admired by all. A reasonable viewer would understand such advertisements as mere puffery, not as statements of fact, see, e.g., Hubbard v. General Motors Corp., 95 Civ. 4362(AGS), 1996 WL 274018, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 1996) (advertisement describing automobile as “Like a Rock,” was mere puffery, not a warranty of quality); Lovett, 207 N.Y.S. at 756; and refrain from interpreting the promises of the commercial as being literally true.

Second, the callow youth featured in the commercial is a highly improbable pilot, one who could barely be trusted with the keys to his parents’ car, much less the prize aircraft of the United States Marine Corps. Rather than checking the fuel gauges on his aircraft, the teenager spends his precious preflight minutes preening. The youth’s concern for his coiffure appears to extend to his flying without a helmet. Finally, the teenager’s comment that flying a Harrier Jet to school “sure beats the bus” evinces an improbably insouciant attitude toward the relative difficulty and danger of piloting a fighter plane in a residential area, as opposed to taking public transportation. FN12