My circumcision was pretty okay, actually, because they brought in a magician. I don't even know when he took it. But I know when I saw it: he was doing that thing with the rings that won't separate, and there it was, holding the two rings together. That was a pretty cool 30th.
Specific changes, maybe. But broad ones? "Uehhh, make the amygdala smaller. Squash it. ... Well, find a mapping of a guy with a smaller one, then. Do like a copy paste."
All I'm saying is they would try, and trying is enough for me to nope the fuck out of all of it.
Actually, now that I think about it, it's far worse than that. If a company has a teleporter that can build a copy of you, they can also build an almost-copy of you. Say, a copy that is less rebellious. More obedient.
Yeah, the idea's cool in fiction, but in reality I would never touch a machine like this. I will walk my ass over in analogue.
That’s why I ask for one I can’t for nearly into that category of “brain does this to ease itself of discomfort”
Right, but what I'm trying to say is that it's not possible to give you one. You have built for yourself a theory that is not falsifiable; every example you might be given will be reinterpreted through the lens of pain, and so it will reaffirm your ideas—because you have designed it to.
Imagine someone wearing purple-tinted glasses while asking people to show them something that wasn't purple-colored. It can't be done.
This is more or less why I was asking about what value this idea has for you, what it teaches you about the world. If this idea, that literally all comedy is about processing pain, means something, it leads to some conclusion, then it becomes falsifiable. Right now you're just offering it as a kind of truism.
Yeah, but... I wouldn't describe a roller coaster as "painful."
Like, I understand the connection you're making, but I really have to stretch my words to get there.
I just, I think you've found a frame to better understand the world through, and you're applying it to everything, even when it might not really make sense to. You're using the concept of "pain" as if it were a fundamental atom of the universe.
It would sort of be like describing an orange as "painful" because the flavor of an orange includes acids.
To be clear im not saying “all jokes therefore are fine [...]
Everything is greater commentary on the world. Every bit of knowledge you gain is a puzzle piece that fits into a broader picture.
I can understand your pain idea, but only if I stretch it out to mean a particular kind of expectation and subversion—which is how I actually understand comedy. That is, surprise is an important element of how jokes work. But I imagine that you're interpreting the unexpected to be some form of pain: that there is some connection between the expected and normalcy, and the unexpected and discomfort.
I don't find the unexpected to be discomforting, which I think may be the root as to why we disagree.
I don't like "bad puns" at all because I think they're lazy.
I've heard good ones, though. Clever ones.
Also, tangentially and as an art appreciator, the feeling of disgust is plenty enjoyable in the same way that horror is. By feeling something, and then looking inward to understand those feelings, you learn something about yourself and about the world. I pulled myself out of transphobia—the "but could I date one, though" kind—by trying really hard to understand where that disgust was coming from. Turns out I didn't need it. :p
Have you ever audible laughed at the talent of a pun
...Yes.
I didn't say this in my other comment because I wasn't sure how to explain it, but you know that "bad puns" are just one particular genre of pun, right?
I mean, I think you're likely to describe them all as painful regardless. "It is painful that two definitions of a word are not easily reconciled," or something.
Can I ask you something? I mean sincerely, like I'm trying to understand you as a person. Why do you think this pain model of comedy is useful? You're describing pain that is so miniscule and modest, but pointing at it nevertheless, insisting that it is pain and thus justifies what you're saying—what is this revealing to you about the world?
PS: The point here is NOT that poor people shouldn't have kids, it's that no one should be having kids without having the basics of childcare covered, [...]
First of all, these two sentences mean the same thing. If anyone is supposed to wait, then we're talking about discouraging poor people from having kids.
Secondly, this text is not from the image. I have fuck all to say to this reposter on Lemmy—at least I think. They want more welfare, I want more welfare; it seems like we agree. I have no beef with them.
It doesn't have to pick any specific one; any branch in which you're alive will do.
Nobody's really "jumping", you just don't die. The universe constructs itself such that you don't die—there's nothing more to it.
It is a funny superpower idea. Like turning invisible. Which also doesn't make any sense if you think about it.
It's both, actually.
This comic where an anti-AI guy throws a tantrum and shits his pants is a valid criticism of us?
Jesus fucking christ.
In a game of memory, writing is cheating.
My circumcision was pretty okay, actually, because they brought in a magician. I don't even know when he took it. But I know when I saw it: he was doing that thing with the rings that won't separate, and there it was, holding the two rings together. That was a pretty cool 30th.
Specific changes, maybe. But broad ones? "Uehhh, make the amygdala smaller. Squash it. ... Well, find a mapping of a guy with a smaller one, then. Do like a copy paste."
All I'm saying is they would try, and trying is enough for me to nope the fuck out of all of it.
His machine would not work very well.
Actually, now that I think about it, it's far worse than that. If a company has a teleporter that can build a copy of you, they can also build an almost-copy of you. Say, a copy that is less rebellious. More obedient.
Yeah, the idea's cool in fiction, but in reality I would never touch a machine like this. I will walk my ass over in analogue.
I think this idea and confidence hold extremely true until you think about Elon Musk.
Right, but what I'm trying to say is that it's not possible to give you one. You have built for yourself a theory that is not falsifiable; every example you might be given will be reinterpreted through the lens of pain, and so it will reaffirm your ideas—because you have designed it to.
Imagine someone wearing purple-tinted glasses while asking people to show them something that wasn't purple-colored. It can't be done.
This is more or less why I was asking about what value this idea has for you, what it teaches you about the world. If this idea, that literally all comedy is about processing pain, means something, it leads to some conclusion, then it becomes falsifiable. Right now you're just offering it as a kind of truism.
Yeah, but... I wouldn't describe a roller coaster as "painful."
Like, I understand the connection you're making, but I really have to stretch my words to get there.
I just, I think you've found a frame to better understand the world through, and you're applying it to everything, even when it might not really make sense to. You're using the concept of "pain" as if it were a fundamental atom of the universe.
It would sort of be like describing an orange as "painful" because the flavor of an orange includes acids.
I'm not accusing you of anything, don't worry.
Everything is greater commentary on the world. Every bit of knowledge you gain is a puzzle piece that fits into a broader picture.
I can understand your pain idea, but only if I stretch it out to mean a particular kind of expectation and subversion—which is how I actually understand comedy. That is, surprise is an important element of how jokes work. But I imagine that you're interpreting the unexpected to be some form of pain: that there is some connection between the expected and normalcy, and the unexpected and discomfort.
I don't find the unexpected to be discomforting, which I think may be the root as to why we disagree.
I don't like "bad puns" at all because I think they're lazy.
I've heard good ones, though. Clever ones.
Also, tangentially and as an art appreciator, the feeling of disgust is plenty enjoyable in the same way that horror is. By feeling something, and then looking inward to understand those feelings, you learn something about yourself and about the world. I pulled myself out of transphobia—the "but could I date one, though" kind—by trying really hard to understand where that disgust was coming from. Turns out I didn't need it. :p
...Yes.
I didn't say this in my other comment because I wasn't sure how to explain it, but you know that "bad puns" are just one particular genre of pun, right?
I mean, I think you're likely to describe them all as painful regardless. "It is painful that two definitions of a word are not easily reconciled," or something.
Can I ask you something? I mean sincerely, like I'm trying to understand you as a person. Why do you think this pain model of comedy is useful? You're describing pain that is so miniscule and modest, but pointing at it nevertheless, insisting that it is pain and thus justifies what you're saying—what is this revealing to you about the world?
I feel like you're really fitting this horse to a suit you've made.
Are you referring to this?
First of all, these two sentences mean the same thing. If anyone is supposed to wait, then we're talking about discouraging poor people from having kids.
Secondly, this text is not from the image. I have fuck all to say to this reposter on Lemmy—at least I think. They want more welfare, I want more welfare; it seems like we agree. I have no beef with them.
I dunno. I'm sure there's a tall building nearby they could fall from.
Or is that too bleak, do you think? Is it nicer to imagine they never wanted to live in the first place?
That is not the subtext of it. That is a Motte OOP would retreat to after being challenged on their anti-poor-people advocacy.
You specifically need to pay higher taxes.