That came up in this discussion where he, Jerry Seinfeld, Ricky Gervais and Louis CK talk about comedy and their techniques, etc. It's really interesting.
This leaves room for improvement/reevaluation and it's actually far more accurate in almost all cases.
I think what _may_ work is "don't be a jerk" or "stop being a jerk".
It's better to debate them on their choices so they can find their own way towards a more enlightened and equitable worldview.
I've also come to realize that this may partially explain why conservatives I know have been reluctant to engage in political discussion in these times. They're being backed into having to defend fundamentally indefensible positions.
Rather than forcing them to opt out, maybe it would be more productive to provide them an avenue out by engaging them in a more positive way. I'm still trying to figure out what that is, however.
Of course, this works best over time, assumes that it isn't a downright abusive situation where you can't really afford to not take a stand, etc.
> I've also come to realize that this may partially explain why conservatives I know have been reluctant to engage in political discussion in these times. They're being backed into having to defend fundamentally indefensible positions.
Maybe conservatives aren't getting into political discussions with you because you consider their positions indefensible. Have you ever considered that maybe conservatives are right about some things or do you monolithically support everything labeled 'liberal'?
I have liberal leanings but am from the so-called red state of Idaho. I try to hear out my friends, family and neighbors because their context doesn't always match mine.
Whether this is possible is very dependent on what exactly is meant by the massively overloaded "racist"/"sexist"/"bigot" terms. These terms are sometimes apt, but quite often these days, they are deployed against facts, in which case it's not possible to reason someone out of the position.
>I've also come to realize that this may partially explain why conservatives I know have been reluctant to engage in political discussion in these times.
No, the main reason for this is that holding certain positions is dangerous in some bubbles. See: James Damore, Lindsay Shepherd, Eric Weinstein, or Charles Murray.
>engaging them in a more positive way. I'm still trying to figure out what that is, however.
Pinker has some thoughts on that:
Something I saw happen recently, was a conservative making positive ("the way things are") statements, and being treated as if he'd made normative ("the way things should be") statements. And being attacked for things he hadn't said, and pressured to defend positions he didn't hold, and effectively called a liar for trying to point out the miscommunication.
I like the suggestion someone else made to basically joke about life, not about people. (my words, not theirs, but that's what it sounded like to me)
At some point, is it not humility nor positive anymore, it is just negative.
Yes, people like it when you insult yourself. Still, if the relationship requires you to take down and insult yourself regularly, it is not worth it. I mean it.
I had that verbal tick where you automatically take down yourself or underplay own achievement and in retrospective, it costed me a lot. It took a lot of effort to get rid of it and I am still not fully there yet. People like it, they laugh and are friendlier and nicer to you. But they do end up believing you are less capable, then you are, respect you less, your word matters less in things that matter.
Dont do it as a habit.
OP: "gives an anecdote about how the article is wrong or incomplete"
REPLY: "gives an anecdote about how the OP is wrong or incomplete"
REPLY-REPLY: "gives an anecdote about how the REPLY is wrong or incomplete"
repeat adnauseum on every comment chain for ever and ever.
Usually people don't have them to learn - they have them to teach.
If two people like that are having a discussion, it's truly an pointless activity.
Doesn't matter IMO.
Both sides are still getting something out of it. Even if they just try to "teach" and think they already know everything, they also get to hear the argument of the other side, and think counterarguments -- thus improving their argument too.
In other words, even if they stick to their a priori beliefs no matter what, they at least learn to defend and define them better, because of having to deal with the other side.
Besides, a discussion is not just something to "learn" from. It's also entertaining on its own, a way to express yourself, hone your thoughts and so on. Learning from the discussion is not required for those things.
Not everything has to have an end goal, or "improve" us.
Some points I can see and am able to articulate:
1. Being exposed to opposing viewpoints is valuable even if your goals don't consciously include learning from them. Pointless to the individual because rationally they won't further their goal? Perhaps. Pointless to society as a whole? I would argue no.
2. Non-participants exposed to such a discussion can learn from all sides, even if the individuals actually doing the discussion gain absolutely nothing, and there are orders of magnitude more non-participants than participants. So even a small impact can be far-reaching.
I don't think that teaching vs learning is mutually exclusive, and while intent matters I don't believe you can have a (non-repeat) discussion without learning something.
It kind of frightens me how much emphasis has been put into creating social bubbles where no one disagrees. Especially online where it's so easy to do. (I want to emphasize that I am not criticizing having people around to support you.)
Your retelling of "barbarian" etymology is also wrong. Apparently ancient greeks thought other people's languages sounded like "bar bar" to them. It's not what foreigners sounded like trying to speak their own language, which wouldn't really even make sense.
"The Greeks used the term barbarian for all non-Greek-speaking peoples, including the Egyptians, Persians, Medes and Phoenicians, emphasizing their otherness, because the language they spoke sounded to Greeks like gibberish represented by the sounds "bar..bar..;" this is how they came to the word βάρβαρος"
This is not the original study I was looking for but similar results.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046496410366311
As for insane, I fail to comprehend. In the spirit of good fun on hn I challenge you to provide us with 10 jokes so that we may debate their merits appropriately.
It seems patently obvious that some jokes are mean and some jokes are not. But it's highly subjective given varying contexts. A "mean" joke about someone at a roast might be considered a kindness by all involved. You could still call it "mean" but you might be the only one that thinks so.
Here's some (mostly boring) jokes. Let's see if you can point out the the meanness in each of them.
"Q: What do chemists' dogs do with their bones? A: They barium!"
"Q: What did the cat say when the mouse got away? A: You've got to be kitten me!"
"Q. What did the ocean say to the sailboat? A. Nothing, it just waved."
"Q. What did Batman say to Robin before they got in the car? A. 'Robin, get in the car.'"
"Q. What do you get when you cross-breed a shark and a cow? A. I have no idea but I wouldn’t try milking it."
"My new thesaurus is terrible. Not only that, but it’s also terrible."
What is a cow's favorite form of entertainment?
Going to the moo-vies.
The librarian asks "You, want a book?" The chicken replies "Bok."
The librarian grabs a book from the return pile and hands it to the chicken. The chicken puts it under its wing and walks away.
The next day the same chicken comes back in and says "Bok. Bok."
The librarian looks at the chicken and says "So, you want two books?"
The chicken says "Bok. Bok." The librarian hands the chicken two books and the chicken puts them under its wing and walks away.
On the third day the librarian decides to follow the chicken to see what it is doing.
The chicken comes in and says "Bok. Bok. Bok."
The librarian asks "So you want three books?"
The chicken says "Bok. Bok. Bok."
The librarian hands the chicken three books and the chicken puts them under its wing and walks away. This time the librarian follows the chicken over fields and valleys, through a forest to a large pond. In the middle of the pond is a frog on a lily pad.
The chicken takes one book from under its wing and throws it to the frog. The frog catches it, looks at the cover and says "Readit. Readit. Readit."
During one such period, I complained to my son that putting my damn shoes on had become the hardest part of my day. He said "Shoes! How the fuck do they work?"
I died laughing and snickered about it for weeks. Some acquaintance had recently been a jerk to me about something I had said that they didn't get and had given me the pity treatment instead of laughing with me (not at me). My son's joke sympathized with my frustration without pissing on me and it was very, very welcome.
Like, when you joke about someone and that person adopts a joke and brags about it afterwards, because what your joke make visible about him is what he likes about himself.
Basically, you will not joke about things that make target inferior, lesser, outsider or something like that. Your joke will extrapolate what target likes about himself, people like about him and he/she is not vulnerable or insecure about.
Sometimes the most tactful way to communicate a terrible truth to someone who who is unwilling to confront it is to make them laugh about it.
Dave Chappelle - Police Brutality (2000)
What about surreal humor? I guess you could say it victimizes the world as we 'know' it?
Of course it's really easy to get mixed about and think you're punching up when you're really punching sideways or slightly downwards (ie at your fellow, yet different, plebs).
Q. What lies at the bottom of the ocean and twitches? A. A nervous wreck.
Q. What do you call a snowman in July? A. A puddle.
Hear about the new restaurant called Karma? There is no menu - you only get what you deserve.
Etc.
Doesn't that just make you less offensive to others?
Still doesn't say anything about you being more positive - in fact, making yourself the butt of your jokes could mean you're self-deprecating or depressive.
No. Where I work we talk a lot of smack to each other. This doesn't go on behind peoples' backs - we prefer that the victim be there to hear it. But about 20% of the time, the "victim" is also the speaker - it's self-directed smack.
When we were interviewing this guy to join our team, I mentioned this behavior, and asked if he was going to be able to put up with that environment. The thought for a moment, and then said "It sounds like you trust each other." He was exactly right. It's because we trust each other that we can tease each other - knowing that the sender wasn't speaking in malice, and knowing that the receiver won't take it the wrong way.
The message from this onwards though is "fuck that person".
It's a simple change, but very hard to do consistently.