For those of you who didn't get it, this is really subtle humor. Think long and hard about this one (non-subtle humor inserted (again) for encouragement)
reminds me of the joke about a man who finds a dead woman washed up on a beach and goes to get help - when he returns he finds someone having sex with the woman's body - says to him, wtf are you doing? this woman is dead - guy replies, oh, I thought she was american!
UA-cam wouldn't let me post this in reply to @mysticvortex13 I agree with you about tickling although it can be funny alongside just the physiological reaction that might come regardless (if a parent pretends to be a monster and tickles their child for example, after it's over the child might still be smiling because they found it amusing). I didn't really understand your second paragraph. Humor isn't always genuine meaning people can mock others as a calculated attempt to shame/humiliate or humble them and not because they genuinely find something about them or their situation to be amusing. I think your interpretation of what is racist and how emotionally invested you are in anti-racism also plays a role. I'm really interested in this point of view (benign violation theory) and it seems to capture some of my ideas about humor and personality differences (ie. that people are more likely to find callous humour funny because they are low on compassion, at least for the victims in the scenarios they find funny, and it's not because they just have a stronger sense of humor than people who are bothered by that same humor, it's directly because they're not as emotionally invested in the victim's well-being so priming people to be more compassionate would make them less likely to be amused by people's misfortune. It's not just about being amused by misfortune either but simply mocking people - the natural reaction to being mocked is humiliation (the social currency or praise that comes with being the kind of person who can laugh at him or herself comes precisely because people assume it implies that you are not easily humiliated, whether that's because you are just thick-skinned or because you don't have a high opinion of yourself/don't need others to have a high opinion of you. I used to think the superiority theory of humor was underrated but people can pride themselves on being superior to hypothetical or possible others in various ways without being amused by the difference between them and there are situations where it is scenarios and not people that are objects of amusement. It seems to me that there is something 'off' about what we find funny, something is ridiculous; it's absurd, so it's a 'violation' but it's ok because it doesn't matter which is why mocking someone can be effective shaming, there's something 'off' about them but it's ok, we can take pleasure in it because it (they, really) doesn't (don't) really matter. I think this covers why amusement is the only positive emotion we can expect people to not want to be an object of (you might not want to be sexualized by someone you're repulsed by and you might not care if they have affection for you if you don't feel the same way but those things aren't 'intrinsically humiliating' in the same way), it's not so much that it requires looking at them as though they are of real negative value, as subjectively unflattering as being 'ridiculous' can be, but that they don't matter, that's why they need not be taken seriously. I didn't really understand a lot of your post but I think we can laugh at certain stereotypes because we don't personally find them very threatening- either because the stereotype itself is not that subjectively harsh or because it's obvious that the person telling the joke doesn't really think that; they make it out that you would have to be a fool to really think that. Again, I don't really understand your criticism even though I don't want to go through it all - as I interpret the argument in the video, something is funny because it's not a pure or real violation but in theory it _shouldn't_ be benign either, and what people are/should be threatened by aren't necessarily one and the same. -I hope youtube allows this. They deleted my last post and it was completely uncontroversial, as far as I can tell. --- Absolutely nothing controversial. They are just being dunderheads as usual.
It's interesting and i think they're on to something. But I feel like I can already see some exceptions if I go purely off what I know from this video.
Pretty much the opposite of Freud's theory that jokes are the royal road to the unconscious as they allow us to say taboo things "humorously" - a variation of the motto that there's ne'er a truer word spoken in jest.
1:33 They shouldn't act like commercial entities ... promoting ... (ohmygod did i just say that that's actually hilarious) (oh jesus don't laugh at my own joke, keep it together peter)' (heh. "oh jesus." with a church joke (STOP))
tickling is not funny, its just a natural muscular reaction, a nervous tic if you will. those who laugh at being tickled do so not out of humor. those who dont, simply dont possess the tic. also, there are many things considered to be a violation of personal value that really shouldnt be such. racist jokes for example, arent really racist, as they arent intended to demean or otherwise negatively impact the subjected person/race. even if they were, in which case they wouldnt be funny, they still wouldnt be a violation of said nature without either a: having the words of said comment be inherently threatening in nature, such as a death threat, or b: the subject of said comments allowing themself to become unreasonably hypersensitive to it. in other words, a comment about black people liking chicken isnt actually racist. a threat to lynch someone for being jewish, or making an implication that you will arrest someone for being mexican, or banning them from an area for being muslim, or docking them pay for being native american, are. and somewhere in the gray is the comment cliven bundy made, wondering whether or not black people would be better off as slaves than living in their current status.. racist if taken to imply they should again become slaves, not if taken simply to imply that their current state of living overall could be considered that miserable.. nonetheless, people are justified in finding it offensive reguardless due to its use of cookiecutter stereotyping the entire race and not just an appropriate demographic within it.. but i digress... there are just so many things wrong with this theory of funny..
Yes, but as he says, tickling is only likely to cause laughter in certain situations as it does with friends and family members. As far as racist jokes, I think that example supports the theory. The reason they're not an exclusive violation because they usually have elements that are benign. This also depends on the social context of the person who hears the joke. To some, the benign condition may not be satisfied and it may be purely offensive (a violation).
The reason why racist jokes may be offensive is that it is often making fun of the sad and damaged state of black people, therefore many people that believe in equality for races or black people that are conscious of their reality find no humor in it. The benign of the violation is not seen while the actual violation is really seen. The reason why white people or people that may not be as racially aware find it funny is because they distance themselves from the people that are being made fun of or they don't know enough about black people and what we have gone through to take any offense to it. This is what I believe to be the reality
I agree with you about tickling although it can be funny alongside just the physiological reaction that might come regardless (if a parent pretends to be a monster and tickles their child for example, after it's over the child might still be smiling because they found it amusing). I didn't really understand your second paragraph. Humor isn't always genuine meaning people can mock others as a calculated attempt to shame/humiliate or humble them and not because they genuinely find something about them or their situation to be amusing. I think your interpretation of what is racist and how emotionally invested you are in anti-racism also plays a role. I'm really interested in this point of view (benign violation theory) and it seems to capture some of my ideas about humor and personality differences (ie. that people are more likely to find callous humour funny because they are low on compassion, at least for the victims in the scenarios they find funny, and it's not because they just have a stronger sense of humor than people who are bothered by that same humor, it's directly because they're not as emotionally invested in the victim's well-being so priming people to be more compassionate would make them less likely to be amused by people's misfortune. It's not just about being amused by misfortune either but simply mocking people - the natural reaction to being mocked is humiliation (the social currency or praise that comes with being the kind of person who can laugh at him or herself comes precisely because people assume it implies that you are not easily humiliated, whether that's because you are just thick-skinned or because you don't have a high opinion of yourself/don't need others to have a high opinion of you. I used to think the superiority theory of humor was underrated but people can pride themselves on being superior to hypothetical or possible others in various ways without being amused by the difference between them and there are situations where it is scenarios and not people that are objects of amusement. It seems to me that there is something 'off' about what we find funny, something is ridiculous; it's absurd, so it's a 'violation' but it's ok because it doesn't matter which is why mocking someone can be effective shaming, there's something 'off' about them but it's ok, we can take pleasure in it because it (they, really) doesn't (don't) really matter. I think this covers why amusement is the only positive emotion we can expect people to not want to be an object of (you might not want to be sexualized by someone you're repulsed by and you might not care if they have affection for you if you don't feel the same way but those things aren't 'intrinsically humiliating' in the same way), it's not so much that it requires looking at them as though they are of real negative value, as subjectively unflattering as being 'ridiculous' can be, but that they don't matter, that's why they need not be taken seriously. I didn't really understand a lot of your post but I think we can laugh at certain stereotypes because we don't personally find them very threatening- either because the stereotype itself is not that subjectively harsh or because it's obvious that the person telling the joke doesn't really think that; they make it out that you would have to be a fool to really think that. Again, I don't really understand your criticism even though I don't want to go through it all - as I interpret the argument in the video, something is funny because it's not a pure or real violation but in theory it _shouldn't_ be benign either, and what people are/should be threatened by aren't necessarily one and the same. -I hope youtube allows this. They deleted my last post and it was completely uncontroversial, as far as I can tell.
The theory isn't just claiming that some benign violations are humor, it's claiming that ALL benign violations are humor. This theory is obviously false. Say I'm having a mixed emotional reaction to x. I can feel good about something and at the same time equally bad. My mind may vacillate. There are countless examples of this scenario that aren't funny at all. It is so easy to come up with them. It is so scandalous and absurd that this idea was granted an avalanche of media attention that still hasn't abated. It was published by Simon and Schuster and the author was invited on Joe Rogan. This man should have been completely ignored.
@@RandomVexBenign violation happens every time something is making you happy at the same time something else is making you sad. It happens even when you are sad about anything, and someone hugs you to make you feel better. That's a benign violation, but it's not humor.
Furthermore, they can't beat that by replying that the emotions have to be directed at the same object or source. There's no way the theory can require that. It's the mixed emotion itself that the theory is based on. I've thought this through.
"My ex wife in the media claimed she had apparently been 'violated.' Knowing her it probably wouldn't have been a moving violation." Woody Allen.
For those of you who didn't get it, this is really subtle humor. Think long and hard about this one (non-subtle humor inserted (again) for encouragement)
reminds me of the joke about a man who finds a dead woman washed up on a beach and goes to get help - when he returns he finds someone having sex with the woman's body - says to him, wtf are you doing? this woman is dead - guy replies, oh, I thought she was american!
Lol
UA-cam wouldn't let me post this in reply to @mysticvortex13
I agree with you about tickling although it can be funny alongside just the physiological reaction that might come regardless (if a parent pretends to be a monster and tickles their child for example, after it's over the child might still be smiling because they found it amusing).
I didn't really understand your second paragraph. Humor isn't always genuine meaning people can mock others as a calculated attempt to shame/humiliate or humble them and not because they genuinely find something about them or their situation to be amusing. I think your interpretation of what is racist and how emotionally invested you are in anti-racism also plays a role.
I'm really interested in this point of view (benign violation theory) and it seems to capture some of my ideas about humor and personality differences (ie. that people are more likely to find callous humour funny because they are low on compassion, at least for the victims in the scenarios they find funny, and it's not because they just have a stronger sense of humor than people who are bothered by that same humor, it's directly because they're not as emotionally invested in the victim's well-being so priming people to be more compassionate would make them less likely to be amused by people's misfortune.
It's not just about being amused by misfortune either but simply mocking people - the natural reaction to being mocked is humiliation (the social currency or praise that comes with being the kind of person who can laugh at him or herself comes precisely because people assume it implies that you are not easily humiliated, whether that's because you are just thick-skinned or because you don't have a high opinion of yourself/don't need others to have a high opinion of you. I used to think the superiority theory of humor was underrated but people can pride themselves on being superior to hypothetical or possible others in various ways without being amused by the difference between them and there are situations where it is scenarios and not people that are objects of amusement.
It seems to me that there is something 'off' about what we find funny, something is ridiculous; it's absurd, so it's a 'violation' but it's ok because it doesn't matter which is why mocking someone can be effective shaming, there's something 'off' about them but it's ok, we can take pleasure in it because it (they, really) doesn't (don't) really matter. I think this covers why amusement is the only positive emotion we can expect people to not want to be an object of (you might not want to be sexualized by someone you're repulsed by and you might not care if they have affection for you if you don't feel the same way but those things aren't 'intrinsically humiliating' in the same way), it's not so much that it requires looking at them as though they are of real negative value, as subjectively unflattering as being 'ridiculous' can be, but that they don't matter, that's why they need not be taken seriously.
I didn't really understand a lot of your post but I think we can laugh at certain stereotypes because we don't personally find them very threatening- either because the stereotype itself is not that subjectively harsh or because it's obvious that the person telling the joke doesn't really think that; they make it out that you would have to be a fool to really think that. Again, I don't really understand your criticism even though I don't want to go through it all - as I interpret the argument in the video, something is funny because it's not a pure or real violation but in theory it _shouldn't_ be benign either, and what people are/should be threatened by aren't necessarily one and the same.
-I hope youtube allows this. They deleted my last post and it was completely uncontroversial, as far as I can tell.
---
Absolutely nothing controversial. They are just being dunderheads as usual.
It's interesting and i think they're on to something. But I feel like I can already see some exceptions if I go purely off what I know from this video.
Thanks for the tip, Ze Frank!
Pretty much the opposite of Freud's theory that jokes are the royal road to the unconscious as they allow us to say taboo things "humorously" - a variation of the motto that there's ne'er a truer word spoken in jest.
1:33
They shouldn't act like commercial entities ... promoting ...
(ohmygod did i just say that that's actually hilarious)
(oh jesus don't laugh at my own joke, keep it together peter)'
(heh. "oh jesus." with a church joke (STOP))
tickling is not funny, its just a natural muscular reaction, a nervous tic if you will. those who laugh at being tickled do so not out of humor. those who dont, simply dont possess the tic.
also, there are many things considered to be a violation of personal value that really shouldnt be such. racist jokes for example, arent really racist, as they arent intended to demean or otherwise negatively impact the subjected person/race.
even if they were, in which case they wouldnt be funny, they still wouldnt be a violation of said nature without either a: having the words of said comment be inherently threatening in nature, such as a death threat, or b: the subject of said comments allowing themself to become unreasonably hypersensitive to it.
in other words, a comment about black people liking chicken isnt actually racist.
a threat to lynch someone for being jewish, or making an implication that you will arrest someone for being mexican, or banning them from an area for being muslim, or docking them pay for being native american, are.
and somewhere in the gray is the comment cliven bundy made, wondering whether or not black people would be better off as slaves than living in their current status.. racist if taken to imply they should again become slaves, not if taken simply to imply that their current state of living overall could be considered that miserable..
nonetheless, people are justified in finding it offensive reguardless due to its use of cookiecutter stereotyping the entire race and not just an appropriate demographic within it.. but i digress...
there are just so many things wrong with this theory of funny..
Yes, but as he says, tickling is only likely to cause laughter in certain situations as it does with friends and family members.
As far as racist jokes, I think that example supports the theory. The reason they're not an exclusive violation because they usually have elements that are benign. This also depends on the social context of the person who hears the joke. To some, the benign condition may not be satisfied and it may be purely offensive (a violation).
tickling is not "just a muscular reaction." It's a muscular reaction, but it's not that simple. There's more to it than that.
The reason why racist jokes may be offensive is that it is often making fun of the sad and damaged state of black people, therefore many people that believe in equality for races or black people that are conscious of their reality find no humor in it. The benign of the violation is not seen while the actual violation is really seen. The reason why white people or people that may not be as racially aware find it funny is because they distance themselves from the people that are being made fun of or they don't know enough about black people and what we have gone through to take any offense to it. This is what I believe to be the reality
I agree with you about tickling although it can be funny alongside just the physiological reaction that might come regardless (if a parent pretends to be a monster and tickles their child for example, after it's over the child might still be smiling because they found it amusing).
I didn't really understand your second paragraph. Humor isn't always genuine meaning people can mock others as a calculated attempt to shame/humiliate or humble them and not because they genuinely find something about them or their situation to be amusing. I think your interpretation of what is racist and how emotionally invested you are in anti-racism also plays a role.
I'm really interested in this point of view (benign violation theory) and it seems to capture some of my ideas about humor and personality differences (ie. that people are more likely to find callous humour funny because they are low on compassion, at least for the victims in the scenarios they find funny, and it's not because they just have a stronger sense of humor than people who are bothered by that same humor, it's directly because they're not as emotionally invested in the victim's well-being so priming people to be more compassionate would make them less likely to be amused by people's misfortune.
It's not just about being amused by misfortune either but simply mocking people - the natural reaction to being mocked is humiliation (the social currency or praise that comes with being the kind of person who can laugh at him or herself comes precisely because people assume it implies that you are not easily humiliated, whether that's because you are just thick-skinned or because you don't have a high opinion of yourself/don't need others to have a high opinion of you. I used to think the superiority theory of humor was underrated but people can pride themselves on being superior to hypothetical or possible others in various ways without being amused by the difference between them and there are situations where it is scenarios and not people that are objects of amusement.
It seems to me that there is something 'off' about what we find funny, something is ridiculous; it's absurd, so it's a 'violation' but it's ok because it doesn't matter which is why mocking someone can be effective shaming, there's something 'off' about them but it's ok, we can take pleasure in it because it (they, really) doesn't (don't) really matter. I think this covers why amusement is the only positive emotion we can expect people to not want to be an object of (you might not want to be sexualized by someone you're repulsed by and you might not care if they have affection for you if you don't feel the same way but those things aren't 'intrinsically humiliating' in the same way), it's not so much that it requires looking at them as though they are of real negative value, as subjectively unflattering as being 'ridiculous' can be, but that they don't matter, that's why they need not be taken seriously.
I didn't really understand a lot of your post but I think we can laugh at certain stereotypes because we don't personally find them very threatening- either because the stereotype itself is not that subjectively harsh or because it's obvious that the person telling the joke doesn't really think that; they make it out that you would have to be a fool to really think that. Again, I don't really understand your criticism even though I don't want to go through it all - as I interpret the argument in the video, something is funny because it's not a pure or real violation but in theory it _shouldn't_ be benign either, and what people are/should be threatened by aren't necessarily one and the same.
-I hope youtube allows this. They deleted my last post and it was completely uncontroversial, as far as I can tell.
Ze Frank Got me here
so, cannibalism, not funny. donald duck eatting daffy duck, funny.
Seems silly but... yep. Pretty much sums it up. Lol.
The theory isn't just claiming that some benign violations are humor, it's claiming that ALL benign violations are humor. This theory is obviously false.
Say I'm having a mixed emotional reaction to x. I can feel good about something and at the same time equally bad. My mind may vacillate. There are countless examples of this scenario that aren't funny at all. It is so easy to come up with them. It is so scandalous and absurd that this idea was granted an avalanche of media attention that still hasn't abated. It was published by Simon and Schuster and the author was invited on Joe Rogan. This man should have been completely ignored.
Yes, if you have a mixed emotion, then it was not benign violation, just a violation.
"It is so easy to come up with them" and yet you didn't
@@videocritic2087 A mixed emotion between good and bad is a benign violation.
@@RandomVexBenign violation happens every time something is making you happy at the same time something else is making you sad.
It happens even when you are sad about anything, and someone hugs you to make you feel better. That's a benign violation, but it's not humor.
Furthermore, they can't beat that by replying that the emotions have to be directed at the same object or source. There's no way the theory can require that. It's the mixed emotion itself that the theory is based on. I've thought this through.