Sunday Funnies #83, comments 1-38 complete, later no LSP

1

chigau (違う)
November 3, 2013 at 2:16 am (UTC -5)
“beloved cat, mittens”
that’s not funny
that’s not funny
that’s not funny
if I say it enough, it becomes true

2

PatrickG
November 3, 2013 at 2:17 am (UTC -5)
Sunday funnies aren’t so funny this Sunday.

3

Al Dente
November 3, 2013 at 6:51 am (UTC -5)
I agree with PatrickG. The Helen Keller picture is just mean. The video isn’t funny at all, it’s definitely scary.

4

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 10:10 am (UTC -5)
That Helen Keller picture is fucking hilarious! Keep rocking it Chris! You kick ass!

5

busterggi
November 3, 2013 at 10:10 am (UTC -5)
chigau & al dente are cat haters.

6

Reginald Selkirk
November 3, 2013 at 10:13 am (UTC -5)
I laughed out loud at the Helen Keller joke. Truly. Literally. That’s why I spelled it out rather than using LOL.

1) Being mean wouldn’t make it not funny.
2) Mean? How so? ‘Splain to us all how it is mean. Apparently HK is happy. Mittens appears well cared for.

7

Reginald Selkirk
November 3, 2013 at 10:21 am (UTC -5)
The Noah’s Ark joke falls in with the “Planet of the Apes” fallacy, in which various types of humans are represented by different species of animals. There’s only eight of “them,” meaning humans, but there are only two domestic cattle. They would have to team up with other species to get the job done. Cattle are going to conspire with cobras? I don’t think so.
And if they did conspire to knock off humans, who is the “we” that would rule the planet?
In the Planet of the Apes, various species of apes are living in a society together and all speaking the same language? Ha ha.

8

iknklast
November 3, 2013 at 10:24 am (UTC -5)
Reginald Selkirk, you take things too seriously.

9

Al Dente
November 3, 2013 at 10:27 am (UTC -5)
chigau & al dente are cat haters.

I like cats. I’ve had 12 cats in the past 30 years. I’m presently catless because the wife and I have medical problems which would preclude being able to take proper care of a cat.

Mean? How so? ‘Splain to us all how it is mean. Apparently HK is happy. Mittens appears well cared for.

The Helen Keller one is ableist. That’s what makes it mean. Making fun of a person’s disability is mean and demeaning to that person.

10

Stella
November 3, 2013 at 10:41 am (UTC -5)
Don’t you know blindness and deafness are funny? Using the word, “blind” in any derogatory capacity is funny, too. If ya can’t punch down, what’s the point of bullying?

Stella

11

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 11:30 am (UTC -5)
I don’t understand the Helen Keller joke. Do you have it in Braille?

If you don’t see the humor in that, you’re totally blind!

12

busterggi
November 3, 2013 at 12:09 pm (UTC -5)
Paul – could you please resubmit your comment in all caps? I couldn’t hear you.

13

noflag
November 3, 2013 at 12:13 pm (UTC -5)
Ableism? In my FTB? It’s more likely than you think!

14

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 12:14 pm (UTC -5)
Oh sorry. Yeah no problem.

15

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 12:15 pm (UTC -5)
Do you want me to sign it to you as well? I used to know sign language…where is that book at?

16

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 12:26 pm (UTC -5)
⠠⠊⠀⠙⠕⠝⠠⠴⠞ ⠥⠝⠙⠑⠗⠎⠞⠁⠝⠙ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠠⠓⠑⠇⠑⠝ ⠠⠅⠑⠇⠇⠑⠗ ⠚⠕⠅⠑⠲ ⠠⠙⠕ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠓⠁⠧⠑ ⠊⠞ ⠊⠝ ⠠⠃⠗⠁⠊⠇⠇⠑⠦

⠠⠊⠋ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠙⠕⠝⠠⠴⠞ ⠎⠑⠑ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠓⠥⠍⠕⠗ ⠊⠝ ⠞⠓⠁⠞⠂ ⠽⠕⠥⠠⠴⠗⠑ ⠞⠕⠞⠁⠇⠇⠽ ⠃⠇⠊⠝⠙⠖

17

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 12:29 pm (UTC -5)
DID YOU HEAR THAT? MY VOICE IS HOARSE NOW!

18

moonglaive
November 3, 2013 at 12:31 pm (UTC -5)
I thought all of these were funny except for the Keller joke too. The reason it’s an ableist joke is because it assumes that blind (and deaf people like Keller) are incapable of telling the difference between a cat and a dog based on their disabilities. People who question why others find this amusing, why do you find it funny in the first place to think a blind person couldn’t tell the difference between a cat and dog? Which is all beside the point, since she was an avid lover of dogs.

That truck one is hilarious though, and something people who’ve ever had to drive down I-10 will identify with, terrifying experience or not.

19

Chris Rodda
November 3, 2013 at 12:51 pm (UTC -5)
How come nobody finds me making fun of the horrible torture of crucifixion to be inappropriate? I mean, all those people who were crucified suffered horribly, so I must be advocating torture, right?

20

Reginald Selkirk
November 3, 2013 at 2:40 pm (UTC -5)
I have driven on I-10, and it is a divided highway. Crossing into opposing traffic would not be possible (or at least, pretty difficult).

RE crucifixion humour: this came up just recently. Touchy Christians Get the Cruci-Flex Blocked

21

LeftSidePositive
November 3, 2013 at 2:44 pm (UTC -5)
How come nobody finds me making fun of the horrible torture of crucifixion to be inappropriate? I mean, all those people who were crucified suffered horribly, so I must be advocating torture, right?

Because crucifixion isn’t exactly a pressing social issue right now. There’s also the point that the cartoon is more making fun of the glamorization of crucifixion in Christian/Western culture and the perseverance on it in Christian iconography, not the fact that people who endured it suffered.

On the other hand, people today really do think people with disabilities are objects of pity and derision, and attitudes like this have negative effects on people’s educational support and social services, and colors countless interactions with friends, family, and strangers who think that it’s okay to trivialize and marginalize those with disabilities.

And really, why the hell would you think it’s funny to deride Helen Keller? She faced obstacles that many of us will never have to deal with nor could even imagine, and she became an incredible advocate and educator. And you think it’s funny to look at a person like that and say, “Ha, ha! She can’t see or hear!!” That’s just disgusting on your part.

22

PatrickG
November 3, 2013 at 3:18 pm (UTC -5)
Actually I found the crucifixion joke hilarious. :D And I’m kind of with chigau re: Helen Keller, in that I feel terrible for chuckling.

My comment about the funnies not being funny was more directed at the truly terrifying spectacle of that traffic incident. Just scary!

23

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 4:59 pm (UTC -5)
How do you confuse Helen Keller?

Nail doorknobs to the walls.

24

Chris Rodda
November 3, 2013 at 5:06 pm (UTC -5)
That’s been pretty much the reaction to the Helen Keller one from the majority of people, PatrickG — you know you shouldn’t think it’s funny but you can’t help laughing. Everyone circulating it and commenting on it on Facebook all week has been saying things like they know they’re going to hell, but they couldn’t stop themselves from laughing. It doesn’t make any of them, or me, an “ableist.” Part of why it’s funny is that everybody feels so guilty for finding it funny!

25

LeftSidePositive
November 3, 2013 at 6:05 pm (UTC -5)
Nice rationalization there, Chris. Really. This is not acceptable. The fact that you laugh is an ableist attitude. It’s the same principle as those who are convinced that everyone is secretly laughing along with them with their racist or sexist humor. Really, we’re not. Someone needs to have some serious ethical shortcomings to find that funny. And, no: knowing it’s bad and laughing anyway does not make it okay. Hipster racism is bullshit. Hipster sexism is bullshit. And hipster ableism is, similarly, bullshit.

Moreover, the “I know it’s bad but I’m doing it anyway” only serves as a self-justification for propagating these kind of attitudes, and reinforcing the still-mainstream attitude that deep down, everyone likes to laugh at people with disabilities…which is ableist, even if you put a few psychological defense mechanisms between you and your choice to not only laugh at a person’s disabilities, but to actively promote & further the exposure of this little turd of laughing at a person with disabilities.

26

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 8:43 pm (UTC -5)
Man, I’m sure glad Helen Keller’s cat-raising abilities were better than your piss poor sense of humor.

27

LeftSidePositive
November 3, 2013 at 8:59 pm (UTC -5)
Oh, yeah…the dudebro always has the finest sense of what’s humorous! How could I fail to be convinced by your scintillating wit?!

At least no one has ever been accused of lacking a sense of humor for trying to challenge hurtful social norms…oh, wait.

28

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 9:08 pm (UTC -5)
lulz

Dworkin would be proud.

29

LeftSidePositive
November 3, 2013 at 9:12 pm (UTC -5)
Nice try, but I’m not going to feel bad for standing up for basic human decency. You could learn a thing or two.

And yeah…whenever anyone challenges your thoughtless display of privilege and crassness, just say the magic word “Dworkin”…that will totally put them in their place, and it saves you the trouble of actually thinking about the impact your casual indifference has on others–since I gather from your participation in this thread that thinking isn’t exactly your strong suit.

30

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 9:16 pm (UTC -5)
It’s funny how your cognitive dissonance brews so that you can chastise others for making jokes out of someone’s infirmities over which they have no choice in while at the same time deriding the individuals you chastise by insulting them on something they have no control over whatsoever – in this case my possessing a penis.

I can see how you could fail to be convinced by my scintillating wit as you yourself have proven to have none whatsoever. But I don’t hold this against you. It’s okay to be stupid. It’s not your fault. I blame Helen Keller – again.

31

LeftSidePositive
November 3, 2013 at 9:29 pm (UTC -5)
Uh, Dude…no one is deriding you for possessing a penis. I am deriding you for being an utterly insensitive, thoughtless, privilege-blind douchebag. I am also criticizing Chris Rodda (who does not, to my knowledge, have a penis) for posting & defending this terrible excuse for a joke, but you are being even more defensive, derisive, & willfully ignorant about it than she is, hence why you are getting stronger criticism. Moreover, I believe from the postings of some of these commenters elsewhere that several of those criticizing the Helen Keller joke also have penises. Your penis does not make you an insufferable pompous ass–it is your choices and your willful defense of harmful social norms that have made you an insufferable pompous ass, and you most definitely do have control over whether or not you choose to be a decent human being…you’re just failing miserably at it right now, and it has everything to do with the attitudes you choose to defend, and nothing to do with the anatomy with which you were born.

But great job trying to claim the mantle of oppression…I’m sure everyone who already agreed with you and also wanted to justify their desire to treat marginalized persons like shit found it very impressive.

32

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 9:40 pm (UTC -5)
Dudebro FTW!

I found you impressive. Impressively boring. *yawn*

Do you even philosophy, bro?

33

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 9:42 pm (UTC -5)


34

LeftSidePositive
November 3, 2013 at 9:56 pm (UTC -5)
Wow, I didn’t know one could lose an argument as pathetically, crassly, and yet still pompously as you just have.

And, just to clarify in case you really are too dense to figure this out instead of being willfully ignorant, “dudebro” is not a criticism of your penis. “Dudebro” does not refer to the state of being male, but rather to a subset of men who take for granted the privileges society has given them, look down on others, and think themselves totally awesome while being thoughtless, self-indulgent, childish idiots. Yes, the state of being male in our society helps to foster such a toxic sense of entitlement, but it is a *choice* to exploit one’s unearned privileges and use that as license to act like a jackass.

And Chris: this is why it was wrong of you to post that meme. Yeah, go ahead and tell yourself that everyone knows it’s wrong and it doesn’t make you ableist…but just look at the social permission you’ve given Paul here to behave like a total douchebag and continue making a series of unfunny, incredibly sophomoric, and unbelievably shitty “jokes” at the expense of people with disabilities. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and this is not acceptable.

35

m lafontaine
November 3, 2013 at 10:00 pm (UTC -5)
Does it make me a rape apologist for finding it funny that Left Side Positive is walking around with a stick up their ass?

36

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 10:03 pm (UTC -5)
Wait! We were arguing? I guess my privilege clouded my awareness. Let me pull back the smoke screen and see what the world presents. Ah yes, douchebaggery! Here we go:



37

Paul Loebe
November 3, 2013 at 10:08 pm (UTC -5)
cis-privileged gender-splaining white-boy uppity up and away!

Buzz Lightyear!

I hope that made sense. I’m trying to learn your language. Here, I wonder if this works…

“Equality is dead,” says Solanas. However, the characteristic theme of Jen Z.
B. Trickledodu’s [1] entry on accomodationism is the role of the dudebro as
ally.

Caruthers [2] states that it leaves the observer to decide between ableist fake
jewelry and rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview. Spiderman uses the term
‘Dworkinism ‘ to denote a self-evident certainty.

Therefore, accomodationism inescapably suggests that culture is capable of
truth, given that rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview is valid.
Interestingly, the premise of predivisive sustained micro-aggression states
that trolling is a product of the collective unconscious. Watson describes the
phrase ‘Dworkinism ‘ as not trigger warnings as such, but neotrigger warnings.
Laden suggests the adoption of accomodationism to read consciousness.

2. Rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview and sensationalist premasculinist
theory

If one examines sensationalist premasculinist theory, one is faced with a
choice: either accept accomodationism or conclude that the task of the victim
is winning arguments online. It could be said that Coyne’s summary of
micro-aggressive Japanese rape culture implies that sexuality is capable of
social change, given that ethical language is equal to reality.

Spiderman promotes the use of accomodationism to dismantle violent threats. But
if subsister-punishing tokenism holds, we have to choose between rape-apologist
’micro-rapist’ worldview and rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview. The
within/without distinction prevalent in ’Why I Issue Threats of Violence’
emerges again in ’Testosterone-Damaged Chromosome’.

It could be said that Nectar [3] holds that it leaves the observer to decide
between sensationalist premasculinist theory and sensationalist premasculinist
theory.

In a sense, the subject is extrapolated into a Ladenism sexual harassment
policies that includes morality as a whole. Thus, a number of micro-rapes
concerning rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview exist.

3. Contexts of red herring

The main theme of the works of Laden is the bridge between gender and rape
culture. Sensationalist premasculinist theory suggests that truth is cited to
cis-splain nonwhites. But the premise of accomodationism inescapably states
that sexuality has intrinsic meaning.

“Society is a legal fiction,” says Popper. Therefore, in ’Why I Issue Threats
of Violence’, Laden affirms rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview; in
’Testosterone-Damaged Chromosome’, although, Laden denies rape-apologist
’micro-rapist’ worldview. If neoradicalized trans-folk holds, it leaves the
observer to decide between sensationalist premasculinist theory and
accomodationism.

Solanas uses the term ‘rape-apologist ’micro-rapist’ worldview’ to denote the
collapse, and some would say the meaninglessness, of posthypersexual social
justice. However, the characteristic theme of U. Stef Hoggle’s [4] critique of
sensationalist premasculinist theory is a condesplaining foregone conclusion.

Interestingly, cis-privileged subsensationalist theory implies that slymepit is
meaningless, given that culture is distinct from sexuality.

Thus, Dworkin suggests the adoption of accomodationism to analyze sexual
identity. Popper promotes the use of sensationalist premasculinist theory to
destroy satanic cult abuse.

38

LeftSidePositive
November 3, 2013 at 10:35 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ooh, great job finding the SJW-Atheism-Plus Nonsense Generator… I guess if you can make a program that generates nonsense in a form that superficially resembles someone’s argument, it means you no longer have to try to understand what they’re saying, or consider the possibility that you could learn something from it.

Theoretical physics papers look pretty ridiculous to someone who doesn’t understand them very well…and PZ will regularly quote some incredible pseudoscientific bullshit pretending to be physics, but that doesn’t invalidate physics itself just because cranks abuse the form. But I would urge you to apply a little more brainpower than: this looks foreign to me–must mock!!

I guess because some feminists have used certain rhetorical excesses (excesses that, I might add, were quite common in their contemporary academic parlance), you can just totally ignore the real-world issues they’re talking about, and shut your brain off from anything that challenges your worldview.

It’s really sad that when your crassness is challenged, your first response is to lash out and heap on the disdain instead of, you know, empathizing with your fellow human beings. You could enjoy a much richer and more satisfying existence if you would stop trying to puff up your ego and defend your shitty behavior, but actually engage with and learn from others.

*****I'm copying the remainder from my subscription, so I don't have any of my comments--if anyone does, please let me know!!*******


Author: m lafontaine
Comment:
Does it make me a rape apologist for finding it funny that Left Side Positive is walking around with a stick up their ass?



Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
Challenge? We are challenging? Challenge Accepted!
Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
3rd wave feminism looks ridiculous to anyone with a brain. Did you really just compare rad fem ideology, which this site was built on, to theoretical physics? That's pretty ballsy - pardon the cis-phrasing...actually, don't. I mean, really? lulz.

Here's the problem - equality is equality is equality. There is no "I have to listen to people based upon their race, sex, or sexuality." Either they make sense....or they fucking don't. Rationality is quite simply that simple. I know it's, again, hard for you to grasp but I'll mansplain all I need to....or rather want to since neither one of us will capitulate. Me due to common sense and you due to Dworkinism.

I came here for jokes. You, sir, are a joke. And thus I continue to return.

/Users/paulloebe/Desktop/funny-helen-keller-twitter-quotes.jpg


Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
That didn't work. Here we go:
http://www.dumpaday.com/random-pictures/funny-pictures/funny-twitter-quotes-32-pics/attachment/funny-helen-keller-twitter-quotes/


Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
How did Helen Keller meet her husband?

On a blind date.


Author: PatrickG
Comment:
<blockquote>Did you really just compare rad fem ideology, which this site was built on</blockquote>

Speaking of irrationality and not making sense....

Idiot.


Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
What was Helen Keller's favorite color?

Velcro


Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
Idiot received.


Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
⠠⠕⠕⠓⠂⠀⠛⠗⠑⠁⠞ ⠚⠕⠃ ⠋⠊⠝⠙⠊⠝⠛ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠠⠠⠎⠚⠺⠤⠁⠞⠓⠑⠊⠎⠍⠤⠏⠇⠥⠎ ⠠⠝⠕⠝⠎⠑⠝⠎⠑ ⠠⠛⠑⠝⠑⠗⠁⠞⠕⠗… ⠠⠊ ⠛⠥⠑⠎⠎ ⠊⠋ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠉⠁⠝ ⠍⠁⠅⠑ ⠁ ⠏⠗⠕⠛⠗⠁⠍ ⠞⠓⠁⠞ ⠛⠑⠝⠑⠗⠁⠞⠑⠎ ⠝⠕⠝⠎⠑⠝⠎⠑ ⠊⠝ ⠁ ⠋⠕⠗⠍ ⠞⠓⠁⠞ ⠎⠥⠏⠑⠗⠋⠊⠉⠊⠁⠇⠇⠽ ⠗⠑⠎⠑⠍⠃⠇⠑⠎ ⠎⠕⠍⠑⠕⠝⠑⠠⠴⠎ ⠁⠗⠛⠥⠍⠑⠝⠞⠂ ⠊⠞ ⠍⠑⠁⠝⠎ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠝⠕ ⠇⠕⠝⠛⠑⠗ ⠓⠁⠧⠑ ⠞⠕ ⠞⠗⠽ ⠞⠕ ⠥⠝⠙⠑⠗⠎⠞⠁⠝⠙ ⠺⠓⠁⠞ ⠞⠓⠑⠽⠠⠴⠗⠑ ⠎⠁⠽⠊⠝⠛⠂ ⠕⠗ ⠉⠕⠝⠎⠊⠙⠑⠗ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠏⠕⠎⠎⠊⠃⠊⠇⠊⠞⠽ ⠞⠓⠁⠞ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠉⠕⠥⠇⠙ ⠇⠑⠁⠗⠝ ⠎⠕⠍⠑⠞⠓⠊⠝⠛ ⠋⠗⠕⠍ ⠊⠞⠲

⠠⠞⠓⠑⠕⠗⠑⠞⠊⠉⠁⠇ ⠏⠓⠽⠎⠊⠉⠎ ⠏⠁⠏⠑⠗⠎ ⠇⠕⠕⠅ ⠏⠗⠑⠞⠞⠽ ⠗⠊⠙⠊⠉⠥⠇⠕⠥⠎ ⠞⠕ ⠎⠕⠍⠑⠕⠝⠑ ⠺⠓⠕ ⠙⠕⠑⠎⠝⠠⠴⠞ ⠥⠝⠙⠑⠗⠎⠞⠁⠝⠙ ⠞⠓⠑⠍ ⠧⠑⠗⠽ ⠺⠑⠇⠇…⠁⠝⠙ ⠠⠠⠏⠵ ⠺⠊⠇⠇ ⠗⠑⠛⠥⠇⠁⠗⠇⠽ ⠟⠥⠕⠞⠑ ⠎⠕⠍⠑ ⠊⠝⠉⠗⠑⠙⠊⠃⠇⠑ ⠏⠎⠑⠥⠙⠕⠎⠉⠊⠑⠝⠞⠊⠋⠊⠉ ⠃⠥⠇⠇⠎⠓⠊⠞ ⠏⠗⠑⠞⠑⠝⠙⠊⠝⠛ ⠞⠕ ⠃⠑ ⠏⠓⠽⠎⠊⠉⠎⠂ ⠃⠥⠞ ⠞⠓⠁⠞ ⠙⠕⠑⠎⠝⠠⠴⠞ ⠊⠝⠧⠁⠇⠊⠙⠁⠞⠑ ⠏⠓⠽⠎⠊⠉⠎ ⠊⠞⠎⠑⠇⠋ ⠚⠥⠎⠞ ⠃⠑⠉⠁⠥⠎⠑ ⠉⠗⠁⠝⠅⠎ ⠁⠃⠥⠎⠑ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠋⠕⠗⠍⠲ ⠠⠃⠥⠞ ⠠⠊ ⠺⠕⠥⠇⠙ ⠥⠗⠛⠑ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠞⠕ ⠁⠏⠏⠇⠽ ⠁ ⠇⠊⠞⠞⠇⠑ ⠍⠕⠗⠑ ⠃⠗⠁⠊⠝⠏⠕⠺⠑⠗ ⠞⠓⠁⠝⠒ ⠞⠓⠊⠎ ⠇⠕⠕⠅⠎ ⠋⠕⠗⠑⠊⠛⠝ ⠞⠕ ⠍⠑–⠍⠥⠎⠞ ⠍⠕⠉⠅⠖⠖

⠠⠊ ⠛⠥⠑⠎⠎ ⠃⠑⠉⠁⠥⠎⠑ ⠎⠕⠍⠑ ⠋⠑⠍⠊⠝⠊⠎⠞⠎ ⠓⠁⠧⠑ ⠥⠎⠑⠙ ⠉⠑⠗⠞⠁⠊⠝ ⠗⠓⠑⠞⠕⠗⠊⠉⠁⠇ ⠑⠭⠉⠑⠎⠎⠑⠎ ⠐⠣⠑⠭⠉⠑⠎⠎⠑⠎ ⠞⠓⠁⠞⠂ ⠠⠊ ⠍⠊⠛⠓⠞ ⠁⠙⠙⠂ ⠺⠑⠗⠑ ⠟⠥⠊⠞⠑ ⠉⠕⠍⠍⠕⠝ ⠊⠝ ⠞⠓⠑⠊⠗ ⠉⠕⠝⠞⠑⠍⠏⠕⠗⠁⠗⠽ ⠁⠉⠁⠙⠑⠍⠊⠉ ⠏⠁⠗⠇⠁⠝⠉⠑⠐⠜⠂ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠉⠁⠝ ⠚⠥⠎⠞ ⠞⠕⠞⠁⠇⠇⠽ ⠊⠛⠝⠕⠗⠑ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠗⠑⠁⠇⠤⠺⠕⠗⠇⠙ ⠊⠎⠎⠥⠑⠎ ⠞⠓⠑⠽⠠⠴⠗⠑ ⠞⠁⠇⠅⠊⠝⠛ ⠁⠃⠕⠥⠞⠂ ⠁⠝⠙ ⠎⠓⠥⠞ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠃⠗⠁⠊⠝ ⠕⠋⠋ ⠋⠗⠕⠍ ⠁⠝⠽⠞⠓⠊⠝⠛ ⠞⠓⠁⠞ ⠉⠓⠁⠇⠇⠑⠝⠛⠑⠎ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠺⠕⠗⠇⠙⠧⠊⠑⠺⠲

⠠⠊⠞⠠⠴⠎ ⠗⠑⠁⠇⠇⠽ ⠎⠁⠙ ⠞⠓⠁⠞ ⠺⠓⠑⠝ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠉⠗⠁⠎⠎⠝⠑⠎⠎ ⠊⠎ ⠉⠓⠁⠇⠇⠑⠝⠛⠑⠙⠂ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠋⠊⠗⠎⠞ ⠗⠑⠎⠏⠕⠝⠎⠑ ⠊⠎ ⠞⠕ ⠇⠁⠎⠓ ⠕⠥⠞ ⠁⠝⠙ ⠓⠑⠁⠏ ⠕⠝ ⠞⠓⠑ ⠙⠊⠎⠙⠁⠊⠝ ⠊⠝⠎⠞⠑⠁⠙ ⠕⠋⠂ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠅⠝⠕⠺⠂ ⠑⠍⠏⠁⠞⠓⠊⠵⠊⠝⠛ ⠺⠊⠞⠓ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠋⠑⠇⠇⠕⠺ ⠓⠥⠍⠁⠝ ⠃⠑⠊⠝⠛⠎⠲ ⠠⠽⠕⠥ ⠉⠕⠥⠇⠙ ⠑⠝⠚⠕⠽ ⠁ ⠍⠥⠉⠓ ⠗⠊⠉⠓⠑⠗ ⠁⠝⠙ ⠍⠕⠗⠑ ⠎⠁⠞⠊⠎⠋⠽⠊⠝⠛ ⠑⠭⠊⠎⠞⠑⠝⠉⠑ ⠊⠋ ⠽⠕⠥ ⠺⠕⠥⠇⠙ ⠎⠞⠕⠏ ⠞⠗⠽⠊⠝⠛ ⠞⠕ ⠏⠥⠋⠋ ⠥⠏ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠑⠛⠕ ⠁⠝⠙ ⠙⠑⠋⠑⠝⠙ ⠽⠕⠥⠗ ⠎⠓⠊⠞⠞⠽ ⠃⠑⠓⠁⠧⠊⠕⠗⠂ ⠃⠥⠞ ⠁⠉⠞⠥⠁⠇⠇⠽ ⠑⠝⠛⠁⠛⠑ ⠺⠊⠞⠓ ⠁⠝⠙ ⠇⠑⠁⠗⠝ ⠋⠗⠕⠍ ⠕⠞⠓⠑⠗⠎⠲


Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
Why did Helen Keller's dog run away?

You would too if you're name were "arrurragaahferrrfufagrrrrarurgahur"


Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
⠠⠓⠑⠇⠑⠝⠀⠠⠅⠑⠇⠇⠑⠗ ⠉⠁⠝ ⠗⠑⠁⠙ ⠁ ⠃⠁⠎⠅⠑⠞⠃⠁⠇⠇⠲ ⠠⠝⠕ ⠎⠑⠗⠊⠕⠥⠎⠇⠽⠖ ⠠⠊⠄⠍ ⠝⠕⠞ ⠚⠕⠅⠊⠝⠛⠲


Author: Chris Rodda
Comment:
@ LeftSidePositive ... Paul isn't making all these stupid jokes because of what I posted. He's making them because of your sanctimonious comments about what I posted.



Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
1. rad fem: replacement of patriarchy with matriarchy. subservience to women and underprivileged peoples by the privileged as reparations. Disagreement is immediate mansplaining and cis-bullshit rape-apologist accusations.

2. mainstream feminist theory that doesn't follow 3rd wave = good

3. equality is equality. We'll never achieve it because interpretation is a bitch.

4. Reasoning: I don't give credit to someone because of something they can't control: being woman, trans, a minority, whatever. Just like I won't give ground cuz I'm a straight white guy. If you can't control that it's not a factor in my book. I want rationality and reasoning. If it is illogical to connect the dots from points A to E then the argument should be discarded and disregarded.

Finally, sischick, I don't give a fuck who you are. You're probably some nitwit UC Berkley white person ashamed of being white.

Thanks for the lecture. Now back to your regularly scheduled funnies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQZ3mNX2FyY



Author: PatrickG
Comment:
@ Chris Rodda, #50:

Fairly sure the accusation that FTB is a borg-like entity based on radical feminism wasn't a joke. On the other hand, this is the internet, so perhaps he's experimenting with Poe's Law.

<b>Assumes deep voice</b>: Have you, Chris Rodda, ever been, considered being, or associated with the Radical Feminists at freethoughtblogs.com?

But more importantly, what's up with the knock against UC Berkeley? Has Paul even <i>been</i> there? I got two degrees there and somehow never felt bad about being white. This isn't the 60s anymore, Paul.

Anyway, I'll stand by my assessment of "idiot". :)




Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
Please do. I'm really not concerned with your opinion of me. Despite the whinesplainers on this site I actually make a difference. As does Chris. It's funny how Helen Keller has accomplished more as a blind deaf woman, a socialist activist, and a women's rights activist....than almost all of FTB combined.




Author: PatrickG
Comment:
Must point out the non sequitur. Chris Rodda does amazing work. So did Helen Keller.

Has nothing to do with your ridiculous assertion that FTB is attempting to establish a matriarchy (seriously: ahahahahahaha! Can I have some of whatever you're smoking?).



Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
Hmmm....who's angry? I'm not. Helen Keller jokes are funny. This devolved into me bashing you. Not over the jokes, but because you're an idiot. Don't put the two together. They are separate subjects.

Oh...criticize me all you want - because you will anyways. I never said don't. You are thoroughly entertaining. Keep at it. It doesn't really bother me. I'm just telling you that it holds no weight....here or in the real world.

Your humor still sucks. It was funny as fuck. Keep rocking it Chris! The characters on this site need to open asshole - remove stick.



Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
PattyG - sup, bro.



Author: PatrickG
Comment:
Heh. Diminutive nicknames now? Are you 12?

When the matriarchy comes, you'll be the first to watch endless reruns of Steel Magnolias!



Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
Ahhhhhh! Well, I am pretty metro. I guess what comes around goes around.



Author: PatrickG
Comment:
Whatever floats your boat. I'm headed out for the night, but I'm sure you'll entertain yourself.

VIVA THE RAD FEM MATRIARCHY!



Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
VIVA LA RAD FEM MATRIARCHY!

G'night Patrick



Author: congaboy
Comment:
Most humor is based on the pain, suffering, embarrassment, or misfortune of others.  It seems that humans tend to find these things humorous, maybe because we're just glad it's not happening to us; or  maybe because we are truly mean, vicious, and rotten animals. Each of the comics above were based on someone else's misfortune, pain, or embarrassment.  Just because panels 1, 2, and 4 happen to be about things that didn't really happen doesn't make them any less mean or any more or less OK than the other two.  It is just as mean and insensitive to laugh at anyone's pain, suffering, embarrassment, or misfortune as it is to laugh at the Hellen Keller comic.  But, then again life is pain and so, sometimes, we need some "gallows humor" to keep ourselves from breaking down and giving up.  The Hellen Keller joke is absurdest and that's why it could be found to be humorous; a person as intelligent and capable as Hellen Keller really wouldn't think that a dog was a cat.  The absurdity of it, combined with the horrendous obstacles she overcame and the relief many feel that their wretched lives aren't as hard as her's was, allows people to express some form of relief in the form of laughing, instead of sobbing and breaking down.  If you don't think it's OK to make Hellen Keller jokes, then you should feel that it's not OK to make jokes about anyone else--it just seems hypocritical otherwise.



Author: huntstoddard
Comment:
I really think LSP is working pretty hard at being offended by the Keller joke.  Make that type of funny verboten, you might as well forbid all irreverent humor outright.  First off, it's only using blindness obliquely as an instrument to evoke hilarity.  It's like the scene in Dumb and Dumber when Jeff Daniels's character nails the dead bird to a perch and sells it to a blind disabled boy (and then its head falls off).  As others have mentioned, this type of hilarity is delivered by breaking the taboo of doing such an outlandish thing.  If, as LSP seems to think, the Keller joke actually constitutes deliberate and serious affront to the blind, she would be right.  After all, there are certainly "jokes" that are used by in-groups that are cruel and only "funny" to the people delivering the abuse.  They are essentially attacks on a person or group.  There are "jokes" that are about things of such enormous horror, like "jokes" about the Holocaust, that are inherently unfunny.  But way beneath that level, there are all manner of shades of gray where irreverence, even when it starts to border on offensive, can be hilarious when delivered in the right way or by a skillful enough comedian.  This type of comedy is not meant to be cruel or to offend, not seriously anyway.  It may sting a few people a little, but that is actually the point and what adds spice to it.  I'm thinking of some of Louis C.K.'s stuff, for instance.  You can't really devote a segment of your routine to bad things that can happen to babies and then <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uG-svno5TU" rel="nofollow">mention Chinese babies</a> without having this effect.  Is this being offensive or cathartic?  Sometimes it's hard to tell, and sometimes it backfires.  Irreverent comedy is inherently risky.  If you don't add enough spice, it fizzles, too much and you blow people's heads off.



Author: huntstoddard
Comment:
Let me just add that I'm not dismissing LSP's argument outright.  It is indeed the case that you can't really use your own sense of humor as an absolute benchmark to either give things a pass or not.  If it gives you a ache in the belly from laughter that doesn't constitute a litmus test of virtue.  It may instead be telling you something about yourself.  (The Nazi's probably thought concentration camp jokes were a riot.)  At the same time you have to keep a real perspective and ask "is this thing really that offensive?"


Author: Amphiox
Comment:
The last one is actually kind of terrifying. If you look at the end, you see there's a jolt, and the windshield cracks. In other words, there was an actual impact there. Who knows what happened after the clip stops running.


Author: Chris Rodda
Comment:
After reading all these comments, I was trying to think of when the last time I talked to a blind person was, and remembered that it was a few months ago when a blind guy walking down my street needed directions.

People are always stopping to ask me for directions when I'm outside with my dog. The reason so many people get lost near my house is that some of the streets around here turn slightly, so if you're not familiar with the neighborhood you can easily find yourself going in a different direction than you thought you were going in. So, a couple of months ago, a blind guy was out there, and I walked up to him -- not because he was blind or appeared to need help, but because my dog pulled me over because he wanted to meet the guy's service dog. It turned out that the guy actually was lost. He was visiting somebody and went out for a walk and wasn't sure if he was going in the right direction to get back to where he started. He asked the same thing that everybody else does -- he wanted to know how to get back to the main street so he could get his bearings. The thought didn't even cross my mind that the reason he got lost was because he was blind. I assumed it was for the same reason that lots of other people lose their bearings around here -- he didn't realize that one of the streets he had walked down was turning a bit. The only difference in our conversation was that instead of pointing down the street and telling him to head for the traffic light that you can see in the distance, I told him how many blocks it was to the traffic light. We then let our dogs sniff each other a bit and talked about dogs for a few minutes (my dog was getting comically frustrated that he couldn't get the guy's service dog to get up and play, not understanding that the guy had told the dog to lie down and that this well-trained dog wasn't going to get up until she was told she could, no matter how hard my dog tried to make her get up and play), and the guy was on his way.

As he was walking away, another neighbor who was also outside with her dog started saying things like "oh, the poor guy" and "it must be awful to get lost like that." I don't think that neighbor would ever in a million years tell a Helen Keller joke, but she was the one who assumed that the guy had gotten lost because he was blind, and then talked about him behind his back as he was walking away. I assumed he had gotten lost because he did the same thing that lots of people who can see do, but I will tell a Helen Keller joke. So, which one of us would you say is the "ableist"?


Author: cswella
Comment:
@66. Chris Rodda:

Neither will the majority of racists actively go out and assault minorities, but they're still racist for telling a racist joke.

Being a deaf person, I'm still unsure of the helen keller jokes being good or bad. I would guess that for something like the above joke more bad than good, based on how uncomfortable I feel about it. Also, learning a good rule of thumb on this site (Punching up vs Punching down) I would stay away from that joke because I would consider it a "Punching Down" joke.


Author: Chris Rodda
Comment:
I think that people who go out of their way not to tell jokes about a certain group of people are actually more likely to be the ones who are secretly prejudiced than people who aren't worried about telling a joke that people will think is inappropriate. I know that I'm not an "ableist" because I know that I never have to consciously think about how I'm acting around a disabled person any more than I do around anybody else. So, I really don't give a rat's ass if any of you feel that you need to label me because I think a joke is funny. I'm not going to go out of my way to try to be politically correct. To me that would be putting on a completely unnecessary show to prove something to other people that I feel no need to prove to myself.


Author: Stella
Comment:
The other day I went to get a flu shot. I was yelled at repeatedly, treated as if I were a child and physically dragged around instead of simply being told where to go. I was made to wait for forty minutes; there was no one ahead of me.

Tomorrow I will try to vote. I will be grabbed and dragged and forced to wait for and use whatever spiffy, unfamiliar, assistive tech they bought this time.

I have been forced to walk farther to use the handicapped entrance. .

This is the attitude you are contributing to. Blind=stupid--&gt; someone else has to take charge of me.

Luckily most blind and deaf blind people won't even know about your joke. You didn't bother to include alt text for the images.

Yes, you are punching down.

Stella


Author: Paul Loebe
Comment:
I suppose Amish people should be angry about the rock band The Electric Amish.


Author: Reginald Selkirk
Comment:
I recall a phenomenon from a place i used to live. It was a frequent occurence to read letters to the editor in the newspaper which were of the form, "I'm not a member of group X, but if I were, I would be offended by your article..."


Author: cswella
Comment:
@Paul Loebe:

"I suppose Amish people should be angry about the rock band The Electric Amish."

If being Amish wasn't a choice, sure i guess. Same as native americans being angry about the Washington R*****ns.


Author: cswella
Comment:
@Chris Rodda:
<blockquote cite="">I think that people who go out of their way not to tell jokes about a certain group of people are actually more likely to be the ones who are secretly prejudiced than people who aren’t worried about telling a joke that people might think is inappropriate. </blockquote>

You know, when your 'apologetics' start sounding like something David Barton would pull out of his ass, we've got a problem...

I've been the butt of many deaf jokes, and so I know quite alot of them, and many times I'll see something that reminds me of a specific joke. So by your standards, whenever I think of a joke as a result of remembering it, I'm more prejudiced if I don't say it out loud than if I withhold it? Or am I going to be an exception to the rule?

How about this? I grew up in a racist town, so I have seen many racist jokes/slurs. If I see a word similar to the slur, or a phrase that brings up the joke, is it racist to not say it? Or more racist to say it?

<blockquote cite="">because I know that I never have to consciously think about how I’m acting around a disabled person any more than I do around anybody else.</blockquote>

What leftside said.


Author: chigau (違う)
Comment:
This has been very educational.


Author: Stacy
Comment:
<blockquote>The Helen Keller one is ableist. That’s what makes it mean. Making fun of a person’s disability is mean and demeaning to that person</blockquote>

I can't articulate why exactly, but I don't read this joke as mean or demeaning to Keller or to any other blind person. I think it's sweet and absurdist--predicated on empathy as much as anything. It's hard for me to imagine she wouldn't have laughed at it herself.

Seriously, nobody thinks Helen Keller would mistake a dog for a cat.

@Paul Loebe:

<blockquote>rad fem: replacement of patriarchy with matriarchy. subservience to women and underprivileged peoples by the privileged as reparations. Disagreement is immediate mansplaining and cis-bullshit rape-apologist accusations</blockquote>

Yup, that's contemporary feminism and FtB in a nutshell: we want matriarchy! Reparations! All disagreement is mansplaining!

You can stop stroking yourself for your own "rationality"--making strawmen of your opponents' positions like that is not "rational" behavior.