Sunday Funnies #83, comments 1-38

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.