Signa said:
Given all the emphasis you put in your post, I'm pretty sure you just violated CoC, because of the implication of who you're directing those words at. If saying Mario is gay is an infraction, how do you think saying a group you think I belong to is infantile would go with the "don't be a jerk" rule?
If you want to report me over a harmless joke directed at noone in particular, then do it.
Censor me daddy!
Signa said:
But to respond, humor comes from expectancy violation, and saying an attack helicopter is a gender (lefties have defended mayo as a gender) is certainly against expectations.
Again, there's a type of person whose expectations can still be subverted by a joke they've already heard many, many times before..
Can you guess what kind of person that is? I'll give you a clue, your avatar thinks it's morally okay to fuck them.
Signa said:
If you want to see an actual academic study on it, here's a video.
Just to get the initial annoyance out of the way. Do you see the problem with this statement? Clue: I bolded it for you.
Also, can I ask.. how much of this video did you watch?
Like, don't get me wrong, it's bad, its logic is bad, its argument is bad, but it also doesn't support your point. In fact, it isn't even
about anything you are saying. Fuck, much of the evidence it presents works against the point you're trying to make.
The video does not argue that repetitive humour is funny. In fact, completely the opposite. Repetition burns out the transgressive quality of a joke, making it stale and boring. Repetition in this sense is a form of "politically correct" humour (at least as far as I can tell under the limited definition of political correctness provided). It's saying things which you already know are safe because thousands of people before you have already said them.
Secondly, the video actually goes into a lot of detail on the specific conditions under which transgressive humour is funny, which is to do with distance. The more "real" something is, the less funny it becomes. When the goal of your joke is an explicit political platform, when it serves only as a straightforward statement to promote the idea that trans people are mentally ill, or that people should be thrown out of helicopters, that is not a joke that lends itself to distance. In the end, the joke is about
you being offended. It's about you being offended that trans people exist. It's about you being offended that your sad, archaic idea of gender isn't real. None of that is funny.
Sure, "politically correct" humour may be bad, but your video can't even give a clear example of what "politically correct" humour is save "humour that is not transgressive" or "Amy Schumer".
Now, I don't know if you're familiar with, say, queer humour, but much of queer humour is almost inherently transgressive because it's created by and for people whose
entire lives are taboo to a large section of the population. There's a reason why we have drag culture, why we have a system of etiquette built around insulting people. All of these things filter through into left-wing spaces, because queers are far more visible and vocal on the left. Heck, why do you think right-wing hets cling to Milo so hard they should rename themselves Father Michael. It's because he's the closest they'll ever get to what queer humour is like, just without the actual warmth and solidarity.
I mean, what else does the right have? Stale memes and death threats. Cool.