Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6342018" data-attributes="member: 4937">a) Largely is not a precise term.  It's a qualifier meant to make a precise answer impossible.b) Strictly speaking he did not state that the post was largely meant as a joke.  He stated that a certain section of it was partially tongue in cheek.  c) It's not clear to me what the purpose of it being tongue in cheek was, since the examples don't fit the conventional definition of humorous.  That is to say, 'they aren't funny'.  d) It's not clear to me that the underlying purpose of the post is entertainment or that entertainment was the primary agenda of the OP.  I believe that underneath the protests of being tongue and cheek, the poster has an agenda to vent, voice, or discuss a serious issue.   The humor, that is the juxtaposition of the ridiculous with the real, in the post is being used with the intention of producing a softer emotional response.  e) Exaggerated and as improbable as some of the examples are, they are nonetheless valid examples if you are trying to prove your point via reductio ad absurdum - which is what the poster seems to be doing.     f) I did successfully pick up that the last example was probably intended as a joke, based on the conventions of humor.   It was however I think 'not funny'.   Sometimes its very hard to tell whether something is not funny because of a failing on my part or a failing by the humorist.  In this case, I think I 'get it', but I think the underlying humor fails because it fails the Homer test - 'It's funny because it is true.'g) I believe that the serious issues raised by the poster are more worthy of response than his jokes.h) I'm personally far more capable of responding to the serious issues he's raising in a thoughtful manner than I am capable of being funny.I) Self-parody on the other hand, I'm pretty good at.</blockquote>

Verification