Join 3,441 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

9-11 joke thread call-out
September 9, 2002 12:08 PM   Subscribe

I don't normaly do this, but this thread is the worst I have ever seen.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood to Etiquette/Policy at 12:08 PM (72 comments total)

What was it?
posted by donkeyschlong at 12:14 PM on September 9, 2002


The link was interesting, the commentary made it a troll. But its gone now, so I'm just pointlesslessly commenting to MetaTalk.
posted by Stan Chin at 12:14 PM on September 9, 2002


The post isn't worth repeating. I hope "Polo Mr. Polo" gets fscking banned for that one. I've never been sick to my stomach over a mefi post before.
posted by SpecialK at 12:16 PM on September 9, 2002


the post for reference.
posted by chrisroberts at 12:18 PM on September 9, 2002


That was gone quick! That thread was like the guy who says to his teammates in the locker room "Hey, we've all tried to felate ourselves, right?" and they all look at him and shake their heads.
posted by McBain at 12:18 PM on September 9, 2002


the old thread: "Why didn't Superman save the World Trade Center? Because he's a quadraplegic." the thread went on to poll people for jokes regarding september the 11th.
posted by moz at 12:18 PM on September 9, 2002


I didn't think it was that bad, personally. It was just expressing a different type of viewpoint. (If this was the WTC jokes post...)
posted by stifford at 12:18 PM on September 9, 2002


What Stan said. Interesting if sensitive topic, utterly ruined by Polo's truly soulless example.

I don't normaly do this...

Steve you've been here a little over a month, as have I. There's not anything we do normally here yet. ; )
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:19 PM on September 9, 2002


...although I guess the headline could have been done a bit more tastefully...
posted by stifford at 12:20 PM on September 9, 2002


It honestly wasn't a troll. I thought it would be an interesting discussion about the way humour can be used as a way to deal with horrific disasters. Obviously I was wrong.

[and for the record, the giggling I refered to was one of those "I can't believe what I'm seeing so I'm gonna whistle past the graveyard" kinda giggles -- but perhaps I should have qualified that in the post. My bad.]
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 12:21 PM on September 9, 2002


The post's wording was stupid. Here's the link. It's interesting.
posted by interrobang at 12:22 PM on September 9, 2002


Considering that humor often does follow horrific events, I, for one didn't find it all that much of a troll. It certainly was inconsiderate of those to whom 9/11 is the penultimate tragedy, and it was obviously going to become a huge flame-fest. I would like to think that that's why it got deleted, instead of entertaining the possibility that another viewpoint is really that dangerous. And I for one wouldn't be all that hasty to call for another's banishment, based solely on emotional reaction to what they thought interesting. That reeks of censorship.
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:22 PM on September 9, 2002


And I wasn't saying I found WTC humour drop-dead funny -- I was just wondering whether or not it had begun to emerge.
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 12:23 PM on September 9, 2002


Polo Mr.Polo, repost it (obviously not today) but just make the link the title of the paper:

Making a Big Apple Crumble:
The Role of Humor in Constructing a Global Response to Disaster


Don't add anything. Leave the dumb commentary and Andrew Dice Clay jokes out.
posted by Stan Chin at 12:24 PM on September 9, 2002


I don't see why that post needed to be deleted. It annoys me when people who had no problem laughing at torture jokes in the Far Side get up in arms about some less politically correct humor. Where do you draw the line, exactly?

There are times and places for certain jokes. But I don't see how there are any jokes that are entirely inappropriate.

And I certainly don't see how merely inquring as to the lack of certain jokes is worth getting a thread deleted.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 12:27 PM on September 9, 2002


I simply meant that I am not normally the type of person to complain about things things bothering me, like a post If it bothers me I ignore it, but this was way over the line.

As a reference, I just finished watching the Frontline special about 9/11 that I taped this last week, and watching the people jump the WTC made me quite ill, and I had to turn it off. I normaly don't get so upset.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:27 PM on September 9, 2002


Polo Mr. Polo: I can see your intentions and it was a good article and could have made a good post. I think your callous (to me) remarks ruined it. Honestly, you should have been prepared for this. Did you read the article you linked??

What does World Trade Centre Stand for-

Welcome to Canada-
World Terrorist Convention-
What ? Trade Centre

September 11, 2001 09:59:29 PST10

However, so intense was the shock of the attacks that even such message boards proved not to be safe havens after all. The reaction to this post was polarized, with a number of persons responding, within seconds, with angry, violent, and obscene attacks on the contributor:


You sick fuck

September 11, 2001 10:00:20 PST


Why dont you shut your ignorant fucking mouth. If thousands of innocent people in your country died, and you cracked jokes, I hope somebody would have the common decency to take a block of solid metal and crack your fucking skull open.
Ignorant, callous shithead.

September 11, 2001 10:10:06 PST

posted by vacapinta at 12:27 PM on September 9, 2002


Stan, that is how I started to post it, but I thought it would be more interesting to use an actual joke in the post, as a point of reference.

But your point is well taken.
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 12:28 PM on September 9, 2002


There are times and places for certain jokes.

The anniversary week of 9/11 is so not one. The tone of the post (despite an interesting link) was mocking the still-exposed emotional wounds of many people.

Polo Mr. Polo, actually I'd suggest leaving that link alone until next week (or even longer). Your call, you realize your mistake, that's a start.
posted by Stan Chin at 12:32 PM on September 9, 2002


I'll apologize for jumping on it so quickly and setting the tone of comments, but really.

We're not asking you to walk on pins and needles here, just think a little before you post something. Especially when dealing with such contentious issues.
posted by rocketman at 12:33 PM on September 9, 2002


There is a lot of good discussion to be had about gallows humour, but the post did seem to imply that, instead of discussing this, we should all start trading tasteless jokes.
And, regardless of whether or not that is reprehensible, you would have to expect that it's not going to draw a favourable reaction... So, good that it was deleted, but I agree with Wulfgar!--bad taste hardly justifies banishing someone.
posted by Fabulon7 at 12:34 PM on September 9, 2002


I'm not buying your left-handed apology, Polo. "Whistling past the graveyard" wouldn't be self-described as "callous" behavior. I think the dickhead you were watching that footage with whistled "It's raining men," and you thought it was funny, and you giggled. I think you still think it's funny, which is why you referenced it in your post. Backpedal all you like, you're still an asshole.
posted by KiloHeavy at 12:34 PM on September 9, 2002


But honestly Stan, I wasn't trying to mock anyone's wounds! The tone was flippant, but that's because the link/discussion was about humour, so I was letting content dictate style. But again, perhaps a bad judgment call.
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 12:36 PM on September 9, 2002


This piece on last fall's Friar's Club dinner explored (slightly) the acceptibility of such gallows humor. The verdict: too soon.
posted by mookieproof at 12:38 PM on September 9, 2002


Trust me Polo, I emphasize. :P Just uhm... try it again later, without the slapstick and be aware of those wounds. If people still jump on you despite you honestly trying to clean-up the link and attempting to promote a rational intellegent non-insulting discussion, dismiss it as ad hominems and move on.
posted by Stan Chin at 12:39 PM on September 9, 2002


It ain't backpedalling, KiloHeavy, it's called "explaining my post." Yeah, the guy was a dickhead. Yeah, I did think it was funny. I still do. Is there a problem with that? Isn't laughing-so-hard-to-keep-from-crying a legitimate response to tragedy? I think so, and that's what I wanted to talk about.
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 12:42 PM on September 9, 2002


It was about humour. Is wasn't funny. KiloHeavy: back off--there are tonnes of real-life horrible examples of people in dreadful situations breaking out into laughter. It's a stress defense mechanism. Talk to a psychologist before you start judging Polo's moral fibre.
posted by Fabulon7 at 12:42 PM on September 9, 2002


Mr. Polo, your initial instinct was the correct one; you shouldn't have second-guessed it. Adding a joke (especially a joke-logically flawed one -- Superman's a quadripelegic? How's that funny?) was precisely what caused the terrible backlash, since it obscured the content of the link.

Here's what I would do:
Wait a month, then repost the link, along with the one mookieproof just posted, and maybe one or two more links related to gallows humor, the role of laughter in healing, or other related material. Keep the post serious and simple.
posted by me3dia at 12:42 PM on September 9, 2002


Superman's a quadripelegic? How's that funny?

Well you see, Christopher Reeve played Superman, and then he had an accident on a horse, so then...I guessing explaining it won't really help, huh? ; )
posted by stifford at 12:45 PM on September 9, 2002


LEAVING ASIDE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE POST for a second, PMP says, above, "I thought it would be an interesting discussion" -- and I say stop right there.

Repeat after me, it's about the link, not the discussion. I would argue that the right way to think when posting something is to ask yourself whether this is an interesting link, not whether this link would make for an interesting discussion.

Many of the badly formed beginner posts -- the ones we complain about, the ones that get deleted, and the weak ones that somehow survive -- run into this problem. This one did too. If PMP had buttressed his initial post a bit by focusing on the content in the link, or by collecting some supporting web pages, rather than using the link as a starting point for a discussion he wanted to have and supporting it with his own stuff -- which bombed -- then his post might have had a fighting chance.

It's all about the link, folks. Link. Link link link. Not the discussion.
posted by mcwetboy at 12:51 PM on September 9, 2002


Yeah, the guy was a dickhead. Yeah, I did think it was funny. I still do. Is there a problem with that?

Yeah, mocking that kind of horrible tragedy, especially as it was unfolding, shows an incredible lack of sensitivity and maturity, not to mention compassion, decorum ... hell, let's just shoot the moon and say it shows an incredible lack of humanity. I'll reiterate my original response to your post, in case you missed it: I feel sorry for everyone who knows you.

Isn't laughing-so-hard-to-keep-from-crying a legitimate response to tragedy? I think so, and that's what I wanted to talk about.

If you're not backpedaling, then how can you reconcile "I thought it was funny" with "laughing to keep from crying"? I'm not buying what you're selling.

My last comment on this: the next time you find yourself "laughing so hard to keep from crying" at something so incredibly painful and tragic, do what so many of us do instead: cry.
posted by KiloHeavy at 12:52 PM on September 9, 2002


I thought Superman joke counted as a joke simply because after hearing the set-up, you think you're going to hear something really tasteless about the WTC, but instead, you hear something tasteless about Christopher Reeve.

So yeah, it's the old bait-and-switch, but it still technicallly qualifies as a joke!
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 12:53 PM on September 9, 2002


C'mon Kilo, you've never had conflicting emotions? You've never been both attracted to and repelled by something at the same time? Guess you're a more balanced person than me. Or you're better at lying to yourself.
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 12:57 PM on September 9, 2002


That was unnecessary.
posted by dhoyt at 1:02 PM on September 9, 2002


I remember a conversation I had with a friend of mine that happened to go to NYU Film School last october. We were discussing how long it would be before you could make a "Life is Beautiful" type movie about WTC (with Roberto Benigni dancing around the city, telling a little kid that everything was OK)
posted by stifford at 1:10 PM on September 9, 2002


Life is Beautiful did not make fun of its victims. Robert Benigni just lightened the mood around him, for the comfort of his son. A far cry from giggling at "It's Raining Men", where you are essentially laughing at the painful death of an innocent victim. That's not "dark" or "edgy" or darkly edgy, or pushing the envelope, or gallows humor, or whistling past the graveyard. It's just fucking dumb.
posted by dhoyt at 1:23 PM on September 9, 2002


Yeah, mocking that kind of horrible tragedy, especially as it was unfolding, shows an incredible lack of sensitivity and maturity, not to mention compassion, decorum

I was in an IRC chat when Princess Diana was killed. 5 minutes after the announcement was made on the news, jokes were being cracked. Any tragedy extant, you will find people who use humor to deal with it. It's called gallows humor. Laugh in the face of tragedy and death. It's a legitimate coping mechanism. Deal with it.
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:27 PM on September 9, 2002


I wasn't necessarilly comparing Life is Beautiful to the "It's Raining Men" gag. But I bet if you had Robert Benigni dancing around and acting goofy on a set of NYC as the towers were coming down, some people would have a problem with it (not me personally...)
posted by stifford at 1:28 PM on September 9, 2002


Maybe it's socially OK to make jokes about celebrity deaths (and tragedies) since they have put themselves in the public eye, but the same standard does not apply to "regular people"? I dunno, just musing...
posted by JoanArkham at 1:31 PM on September 9, 2002


Not everybody sits around crying and engaging in an in-depth social discussion of the ins and outs of third-world politics while crying their hearts out at the onset of a tragedy like this. Some people, as has been pointed out, experience a sort of detachment and tend to use humor as a way of dealing with it.

The same thing happened (to me) when a kid I went to school with died when I was about fourteen. I, myself, didn't know the kid that well and wasn't affected a great deal by his death. My friends, however, were. Almost all of them except one. I took great solace in the fact that one of my friends felt remarkably like I did (read: didn't feel), and there was a sort of nervous laughter between us.

It doesn't make me a sociopath, and it hardly means everyone who knows me is some poor soul whose life is better not lived. It's just how things work.

On the other hand, the moment one makes these thoughts public and puts it out into a public forum, something like this is bound to happen.

(For the record, I didn't find the joke particularly funny or necessary, but I can see how some might.)
posted by The God Complex at 1:47 PM on September 9, 2002


deleting the original post was not the correct call in my humble opinion. Certainly the wording was provocative and not in the best taste, there is no accounting for taste, but even so. After all there is a callous side to human nature that is not acknowledged, maybe better the outporing of indignant bile, than possibly admit it could be construed as humourous.
posted by johnnyboy at 1:49 PM on September 9, 2002


I think the standard is set by sitting in an office building next to Portland International Airport, watching choppy web-footage at your computer with your coworkers gathered around, and listening to F-15s scramble as friends-of-friends jumped 100 stories to their deaths. I think the standard is set by going, "God, if I'd chosen another path, that could have been me." I think that the standard is set by outrage -- most of us were not outraged over Princess Di's death, or even the Challenger explosion. Most of us were or still are outraged over the Trade Center disaster.

I think that this will be forgotten and relegated to history books before funny jokes can be made about it. Jokes about the trade center are definately not appropriate at this point in time.

Deleting the post was necessary; it would not have lead to any conceivable discussion, only flames.
posted by SpecialK at 1:51 PM on September 9, 2002


There's a place for that, johnnyboy. It's called Usenet. I don't really want metaFilter to become the boil-lancing room where lots of pimply 14 year old boys (both literally and figuratively) go to loose their callous loads, though it already seems, to some extent, like it's become that.
posted by evanizer at 1:56 PM on September 9, 2002


*Footnote: I was at home when the first planes struck, and got up and read a message board before jumping into the shower. I saw a post about it, and yelled downstairs for someone to turn on the TV -- my dad did, and we sat there watching with our mouths hanging open as the first tower collapsed. He was scheduled to fly out of Portland that day, but stayed home. As I walked in the doors of my office building on the south approach path, I saw the doors to the ready hangers at the PDX National Guard air base roll up, and fully armed F-15s pull out and onto the runway, cutting off a passenger jet. As I walked upstairs, they sounded the air raid siren and by the time I got to the balcony overlooking the airport, ground crews were releasing weapons and preparing the rest of the air crews for combat air patrol over Seattle and Portland. That's a day I don't want to remember... it was a strange, constant reminder that the only time the building shook with the force of a takeoff was when military jets were scrambling under full afterburner.

I'm not ready to joke about that day, and I won't be for a while.
posted by SpecialK at 1:58 PM on September 9, 2002


Jokes about the trade center are definately not appropriate at this point in time.

No. They're not appropriate to you at this time. You can't dictate how people should react to a situation.

It should also be mentioned that looking at the death of so many people (and seeing footage that, frankly, seems to be from a movie) lends itself to detachment. If you saw someone fell from a building and you knew who they were, and knew that person's children's names, and knew what they liked to do on the weekend, then you're not so detached. When you see some guy cartwheeling from the 96th floor of a building on the news--you know, the news that usually doesn't show you something like that unless it's taking place somewhere outside your country where it's sort of safe and comfortable--and the only place you've seen something like that before is on Die Hard, you might find it a bit surreal, or unbelievable. Just "out there" to make your reaction one of incredulous laughter instead of water works.

Anyway, I'll stop now. Just thought I'd put an alternate view in.
posted by The God Complex at 1:59 PM on September 9, 2002


Evanizer -- I agree! In fact, I only posted the link because I thought MetaFilter was a place *free* of 14-year-old boys. The post was obviously about a controversial subject, but I had hoped that people would assume I was actually interested in starting a serious conversation about a subject that generally hasn't been discussed anywhere else. Instead, people called me a sick fuck and left it at that. Guess my expectations were a little too high.
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 2:03 PM on September 9, 2002


Fair enough, Special K. You're not ready to joke about it. And that's exactly what I wanted to get people talking about! Are some people ready to joke? Does that makes them insensitive? What makes this tragedy taboo, versus, say, famine in Ethiopia? I understand why the post upset you, but I think that the upsetting topics are sometimes the most important ones. But as I've admitted earlier, I probably could have phrased it a little better. Again, apologies.
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 2:07 PM on September 9, 2002


Whose standard, SpecialK, are you referring to? Having worked in healthcare, having been elbow deep in blood and gore, and while having plenty of time while thusly endrenched to consider "there but for the grace of God go I", I still had to crack a joke from time to time--as did many assorted cops, doctors, nurses, paramedics, and firemen on the front lines of any tragedy where humans get broken and bloody--in order to cope with the sheer grossness and awfulness of what was going on around us, while it was happening.

If you think the same thing wasn't happening during the WTC tragedy by the people actually there and suffering, I'd contend that you're sorely mistaken. In fact, if there wasn't laughter that day, even of the extremely nervous I-can't-believe-this-is-happening-so-I'm-laughing-hoping-it-will-all-go-away kind, I'd contend that humanity as a species no longer has any sense of hope left.
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:09 PM on September 9, 2002


deleting the original post was not the correct call in my humble opinion.

It was the correct call, because the wording of the post caused it to become a hostile flamefest from the get-go. No productive construction was going to occur, and few seemed to be reading the article. The current reposting is generating civil discussion with the same link, differenct post wording.
posted by me3dia at 2:10 PM on September 9, 2002


people called me a sick fuck and left it at that. Guess my expectations were a little too high.

See above, I already apologized for that. I'll apologize again for not reading the link first.

But I'm not going to apologize for misinterpreting your tone. Unfortunately, I can't read your vocal intonation on the web. So when you posted those horrible jokes as the context for the link, I assumed you meant them to stand as jokes.

Our expectations are high. Your post came in far below them. There's better language on the front page now, so quit pointing fingers at our reactions and learn from your mistake.
posted by rocketman at 2:35 PM on September 9, 2002


fuck these humorless bastards, polo. may the airliners of humility strike down the skyscrapers of thier political correctness and lace undie sensitivity. don't apologize for your well-adjustedness! some of us ARE ready to joke about it, let the grim and the still-wailing deal with it.
posted by quonsar at 3:00 PM on September 9, 2002


Hmn, interesting point, Wolf. I did participate in that kind of gallows humor when I was working (ack, forgive me, rasmyj) the local beat on a newspaper, and in many other situations since then. You are correct in the fact that the ability to laugh our way out of situations that would otherwise cause us to break down is part of a survival instinct.
I think that the difference is that a lot of people, including myself, -did- break down in shock. It just... doesn't seem funny.
posted by SpecialK at 3:01 PM on September 9, 2002


I'm not ready to joke about that day, and I won't be for a while.
your problem, specialk. deal with it.
posted by quonsar at 3:03 PM on September 9, 2002


Fuck you too, quonsar. Thanks for the enlightening discourse.

God, MeFi feels like usenet these days.
posted by SpecialK at 3:03 PM on September 9, 2002


really, specialk, it's as enlightened as expecting everyone else to reign themselves in while you continue to heal. that's the most self-centered crap i've heard in a long while.
posted by quonsar at 3:23 PM on September 9, 2002


This is ridiculous. Do major etiquette breaches have to degenerate into personal attacks? Free speech, people. PMP wasn't trying to destroy the community, he was trying to inform us about something that he considered interesting, and I greatly hope he ISN'T banned.
posted by gsteff at 3:31 PM on September 9, 2002


The reactions to the post were much worse than the post itself.

It feels like usenet becuase of the knee-jerk reactions to posts, not the posts themselves.
posted by Mick at 3:31 PM on September 9, 2002


major etiquette breaches

Define, please?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:45 PM on September 9, 2002


Quonsar, did you make jokes about Pearl Harbor, too?
posted by SpecialK at 3:56 PM on September 9, 2002


I think that the difference is that a lot of people, including myself, -did- break down in shock. It just... doesn't seem funny.

I agree with you there, SpecialK, but every time I think about my own shocked state on that day, I also recall the video I saw on CNN of a doctor who'd come out of (and then back into) ground zero. He looked barely human, but was bound and determined to offer whatever aid he could. However grim the situation was, I still cracked a wry smile each of the (numerous) times he asked for a 'toot' from each and every emergency worker wearing an oxygen mask he happened upon.

That sort of humor can get us through even the darkest of nights, and to forget it, to me, makes us less capable of hope and life than if we went around treading on eggshells for fear of not respecting the dead and the tragedy that caused those deaths.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:59 PM on September 9, 2002


While the post was certainly badly worded, particularly given the time-frame, the problem was not the post itself, but the responses to it. It was clear that the responses were to the post, not the link (it's all about the link, remember) and no-one should be commenting in a thread unless they have read the link first.

To say that it is too soon to joke about the WTC is a valid comment, but it is an equally valid view that it is OK to use humour as a particular person's way of dealing with the situation (ask anyone who has seen front-line service in any war). We all deal with feelings in different ways and that doesn't make any of us wrong, just different.

The WTC disaster was different from other events that it may be compared with in that it took so long for the jokes to start circulating. Perhaps because it touched so many people so closely - being in an exploding space shuttle is not something that is likely to happen to Joe Average, but we have all been in tall buildings and it is not a great leap to think "that could happen to me". It was several weeks before I heard the first joke (the What Trade Centre? one), while with the Challenger disaster it was only a matter of hours.

If you disagree with the sentiments expressed in a thread, by all means attack the sentiments using logical argument or bitter hatred, whatever works for you. Just don't attack the person who made those comments unless you know him/her well enough to understand the context of what he/she is saying. Even then, don't attack the person, attack what they are saying. To call someone an ignorant, callous shithead is not appropriate in any forum where you do not know the person well (probably not even then).

[/my 1c worth]

I'm not buying your left-handed apology, Polo - you have something against left-handers, KiloHeavy?
posted by dg at 4:27 PM on September 9, 2002


Quonsar, did you make jokes about Pearl Harbor, too?
ROFLMAO!
christ, i'm not THAT old!
[but i WOULD have...]
posted by quonsar at 4:32 PM on September 9, 2002


Making jokes to lighten up a situation is totally different than making jokes at the expense of a situation. Humor is usually necessary in the most dire of circumstances. Sitting on your fat ass in front of a computer giggling at the people diving off the Towers is juvenile and sick. I don't like "political correctness" any more than (almost) anyone else, but there is an old-fashioned thing called respect and sensitivity that some adults still possess that seems called for in this situation. The insistence that you should be allowed to bark up nasty jokes wherever you feel like it is just as 'selfish' as you feel the more sensitive among us are for not wanting to hear nasty crap. There are forums all over the net that would love a good yuk over death and destruction. This isn't one of them. At least, I thought it wasn't.
posted by evanizer at 4:58 PM on September 9, 2002


Are some people ready to joke? Does that makes them insensitive?

I'm reminded of George Carlin's bit about how anyone who drives slower than you is a jerk, while anyone who drives faster than you is a maniac.
posted by kindall at 7:33 PM on September 9, 2002


It ain't backpedalling, KiloHeavy, it's called "explaining my post."

Bullshit. You're backpedalling as hard as you can. You've demonstrated a facility in English which is not so poor that the original post would be believable as a mistake. At least quonsar is an unapologetic asshole.
posted by sennoma at 8:00 PM on September 9, 2002


Typical of me, I didn't read all of your comments (just the good ones) and so forgive me if someone already said this but...

Comedy = History + Time.

Thus, this bad post fails in the Time department. Like, Mel Brooks's History of the World "Inquisition" number wouldn't work if we were all in Spain right now way back when and our Jewish and Moorish friends were being flogged.

Thank you.
posted by adrober at 9:57 PM on September 9, 2002


evanizer I must say the degree of pretensiousness emanating from your comment is overwhelming, positively nauseating.
posted by johnnyboy at 4:05 AM on September 10, 2002


god help you wimps if a real war happens.
posted by quonsar at 4:36 AM on September 10, 2002


evanizer I must say the degree of pretensiousness emanating from your comment is overwhelming, positively nauseating.

Then I suggest you take some Alka-Seltzer and some Dramamine, or get off the merry-go-round before your nauseouness causes you to barf all over us again. (Though I'm glad you find my emanations overwhelming, you little charmer, you! )

~wink~

posted by evanizer at 4:53 AM on September 10, 2002


pah. A poor attempt at irony on my part, then again I suppose I am only fourteen.
posted by johnnyboy at 5:02 AM on September 10, 2002


the actual linked article sortof explains all the emotions flying around here quite well

It seems clear that joking does play an early role in responding to disaster, but those who communicate such jokes run a social risk in spreading them beyond a trusted circle of acquaintances.

Christie Davies (1999), in his study of jokes inspired by the death of Princess Diana, similarly found "no evidence that the hard-nosed jokers [who circulate topical humor] are in everyday life callous people who would feel unmoved in the presence of a real disaster or who in the face of misfortune would pass by on the other side of the road." From an objective point of view, therefore, in the case of media disasters, it is the absence of humor that is socially deviant.

posted by zoid at 5:23 AM on September 10, 2002


"At least quonsar is an unapologetic asshole."

The only thing I've apologized for was not making my reasons for posting the link clear enough the first time around. Again, that's not backpedaling, that's *clarifying*.

Front page posts are supposed to be short and sweet - so I went for pithy and provocative instead of concise and informative. But obviously (given the response) my flippancy led to misunderstandings. For which I am sorry, if only because it ended up derailing what I had hoped would be an interesting discussion. Luckily, the link was reposted, and I had a good read when I came into work this morning. Mission accomplished.

posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 6:09 AM on September 10, 2002


« Older Madison/Upper Midwest meetup. ...  |  Can't well all just get along?... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments