|
Also parodies of statements by central wbankers.
|
|
|
|
|
In the old days I use to cough to hide a fart, now I fart to hide a cough.
A Fine is a Tax for doing something wrong
A Tax is a Fine for doing something good.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't do that in an Apple shop!
|
|
|
|
|
You guys hold him, I will get the corona wires.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
If you have to have it explained to you, then you probably should not attempt it.
This golden rule applies to more things in life than just humor.
|
|
|
|
|
So you say there is an absolute, undisputable, single answer. There is no graded scale.
Then there are only two alternatives: No joking whatsoever is acceptable. Or anything is acceptable. I suspect that you go for the first alternative.
I am not sure if the Norwegian term "galgenhumor" can be directly translated to English: "Gallows humour". It refers to the kind of jokes a delinquent makes before he is killed. Or in a more modern setting: Making jokes on in an extremely bleak situation, about that situation, to make people laugh at at to keep spirits up. A special kind of black humour, the one that is not just black, but refers to your own current situation. I dare to claim that this sort or humour has saved a few lives: When people can laugh at their own situation, they may gain the strength to survive it.
I accept that you think it is better to keep the situation as bleak as possible, smile at nothing, laugh at noting that is related to it. So you are free to ignore all such things. Consider my request to be directed at those who think humour can be an essential element in handling hardships. It is not evident how far the joking might go, and it certainly varies from one society to another, one setting to another. It is not at all obvious that a joke crossing the border line in one specific society in one specific setting could not cause a releaving laugh and give a mental push to people ina completely different setting in a completely different society.
|
|
|
|
|
He said nothing of the sort.
|
|
|
|
|
So what did he say?
"If you have to have it explained to you, then you probably should not attempt it" sounds to me quite clearly like "There answer is unambiguous, there is nothing to be explained".
If you think he said nothing of that sort, said neither that "Anything goes" nor "This is not to be joked about", then what did he say?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: "There answer is unambiguous, there is nothing to be explained
Quite the contrary.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I'm not getting it.
|
|
|
|
|
Then let me try to explain it:
It simply means if one has such poor judgment so as not to be able to make the determination for oneself, then they might as well not take any chance.
Let others make the jokes. There's plenty that are perfectly acceptable. I'm very much all for gallows humor, as you put it (and yes, it does translate).
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: There is no graded scale.
Then there are only two alternatives: No joking whatsoever is acceptable. Or anything is acceptable.
Nonsense.
Joking about people who have died is unacceptable, because their families are in mourning.
Joking about the reason the virus spreads through certain communities is unacceptable, because it will almost certainly be racist.
OTOH, jokes like Pompey3's saying he now farts to hide a cough is perfectly acceptable.
You should think two things, before telling a joke about the coronavirus:
0: Will I be adding to anyone's pain, by saying this?
1: Will saying this make me look like a completely heartless and/or self-centred dick?
In fact, don't restrict those rules just to jokes about the coronavirus. Apply them every time you're thinking of opening your mouth to speak -- unless, of course, you really are a heartless/self-centred/racist dick, in which case it's best if everyone knows about it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The length alone of your post pretty much makes my point. 
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: The length alone of your post pretty much makes my point.
Your post was around 250 words, mine about half that.
And, since it succinctly (i.e. without using twice as many words than were necessary) and pointedly disagrees with your point, I don't see how you can possibly say that it makes your point.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You're either referring to another post, or mistaking me with someone else.
The (original) message I was referring to simply said:
Quote: If you have to have it explained to you, then you probably should not attempt it.
This golden rule applies to more things in life than just humor.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: You're either referring to another post, or mistaking me with someone else.
Hmm, yes, now that I look at the threads, a mistake as you describe has been made.
But not by me 
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its like if you have to explain the joke then don't bother.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the explanation is funnier than the original joke.
How was that Descarte joke again?
|
|
|
|
|
Descartes walks into a bar and orders a drink.
When he finishes his drink, the bartender asks him if he would like another.
Descartes replies, I think not, and disappears.
|
|
|
|
|
Not that one, this one:
A horse walks into a bar. The bartender asks the horse if it's an alcoholic considering all the bars he frequents, to which the horse replies "I think not!" POOF! The horse disappears.
This is the point in time when all the philosophy students in the audience begin to giggle, as they are familiar with the philosophical proposition of Cogito ergo sum, or I think, therefore, I am.
But to explain the concept aforehand would be putting Descartes before the horse.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any question scoring for points on bad taste? Is there anyone who doesn't care about their grandparents and wants some upvotes? Is there anyone who thinks this is worth a joke?
Yes, it is bad taste. Still, not as much as the people who try to make a profit from it.
If you need desinfectant, just buy pure alcohol. It's cheap and abundant.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
If you need desinfectant, just buy pure alcohol. It's cheap and abundant.
On the serious side:
In Norway it is certainly not "cheap and abundant". You may know a home destiller, with his illegal activities, but those with quality products are few and far between. The strongest you can buy in the licour stores is 60%, but according to medicals, it should be between 75 and 80% - but not any stronger.
Yet... When asking about the effect of antibaceria aids on viruses in Norwegian media, it came out (amidst the general outcry of "Never ever question advice given by health officials!") that various viruses have quite different reactions to acohol and other antibacterial measures. I have searched in vain for specific information about the Corona. Nowhere have I found trustworthy, reliable information from an health authority source saying anything specific about how Corona compares to other viruses regarding alcohol/antibac.
Honestly: I would think that this could be easily tested out and reported. I am quite sure that the health autorities do know. But nowhere do they make any Corona specific claims about the effect of alcohol/antibac.
Obviously: Making sure that your body is not weakened by any other bacteria infection makes you better prepared to stand up against Corona. So it is not a bad idea to use alcohol/antibac to fight those other threats. But I wouldn't at all be surprised if we, half a year from now, say that "Alcohol/antibac had no real effect on the Corona itself. The 'mechanical' removal, flushing it down the drain through hand washing was significant. The chemical side of alcohol/abtibac: Not so".
I just can't understand why health authorites are so reluctant to tell openly how sensitive (or possibly: non-sensitive) Corona ia to alcohol / antibac, compared to other viruses.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: In Norway it is certainly not "cheap and abundant".
Alcohol does not necessarily mean ethanol. Most hand sanitizers probably use Isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol which should be available in drug stores, Walmart type stores, or hardware stores (paint department?) for a lot less than Drinkin' Alcolhol. A liter or Vodka around here will set you back at least $40. A liter of Isopropyl is about $7. So cheap, and unless the hoarders have twigged on to it, its probably plentiful, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Yet we know nothing about the real effect of neither ehanol nor isoproly on Corona. Is one effective, the other one not? Is either "marginally" effective, the other one "immediately"?
Briefly stated: There is no reliable information about how corona reacts to either ethanol nor to isopropyl.
I am really surprised that there isn't. I would think that it would be quite simple to come up with something Corona-specific to justify the one or the other.
I gemerally trust health authorited. But when the just hammer in "Use antibac! Use alcohol", and when you ask them for concrete evidence that it has a real effect on Corona (not on national health in general as seen in a ten year perspective), then I start questioning it. I have learnt that such questioning is BAD, and should not be brought to the public. Nevertheless, inside my own enclosed cave, I dare to ask myself: If they can't display the effect on the corona, why are they then pushing it so intensively?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
