They aren't really "family guy jokes." Many of them are "I'm going to hell for saying this" jokes. Things that network television cannot air.

I won't even repeat many of them here for fear of getting shadow banned.

Ok, substitute to "South Park jokes". Same deal.

If you weren't aware, Family Guy is a fairly popular low-brow humor cartoon TV show. It's in the same category as The Simpsons or South Park.

If you haven't played cards against humanity, many of the cards run roughshod over subjects that would give network execs heart attacks. From my experience the average CaH session is an order of magnitude more crass than anything on network television.

But the funniest jokes from these cards aren't from potty language, but from the following:

We had about 10 players, I read the card. _____. High five bro. Players played what they thought was funny. One person put down the card, "Battlefield amputation"

I read it, deadpan. "Battlefield amputation. High five bro.".... And in the course of 5 seconds, we all just realized how wrong that was. One lady laughed for a good 5 minutes for that card response.

Agreed. My favorite example is the question card "Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's ____." To which my dad played "Leprosy". I still chuckle when I think about it.

My favorite play was the card "It's a pity that kids these days are all getting involved with _____" and I played "taking a mans eyes and balls out and putting his eyes where his balls go and his balls in his eye holes".

I know the Simpsons has been on forever and there is about a decade of it I haven't seen but it was not always a low brow show (assuming it is one now). The Simpsons was brilliant comedic social commentary for 5-8 years starting around season 3/4. I wouldn't call the golden years of the Simpsons low brow at all. And I don't have any issues with low brow, I just don't think it's an accurate description of the comedic work I think of when I think of the Simpsons.

I'll say for the record that I have no problem removing the term "low brow" from my comment. Just... pretend it's not there or something.

Aside from this, it's also the interactive aspect of it that plays a part in its appeal, I think.

what's an example

For a low brow show it has a lot of high brow jokes.

Yeah, basically toilet humor. Granted, a lot of it is funny, but it's the non-family-friendly version (not that Apples to Apples is all that family-friendly once my family starts playing, and I'm sure that's the same with many others, but at least it has the potential to avoid offending most people's delicate sensibilities).

This is the juvenile dorm room version (which makes sense, as that's what they created it for in the first place).

It's Apple to Apples except all the cards are hilarious (and yes, obscenely vulgar), rather than just [random boring pop culture reference].

Essentially yes. The game is massively unplayable for a lot of different kinds of people due to the really triggering nature of the card content (rape jokes, pedophilia, racism, sexism, etc.). A lot of people find that content to be one of its virtues, but I've generally found that only certain kinds of people really enjoy CAH (read: white men).

I've played with white women (and one Hispanic woman) who also enjoyed it. I've never seen anyone not enjoy the game.

Most of the people I've played with are Jews, and the presence of cards like "Auschwitz" and "Nazis" isn't a problem. The game is only really unplayable for people who take themselves too seriously.

Ditto. Even if it was just mostly a jab at the stereotypical 'American white male' stereotype, I'm really not fond of people depicting 'minorities' like me (and women) like poor overly sensitive PC types. If anything, it's probably less likely to offend minorities, cause a lot of other countries really aren't so paranoid about being PC like the US is. I mean, there is a fine line between dark humor and offensiveness, but we'll let you know when you cross it; please don't speak for everyone.

I don't think the original commenter did anything to depict you as over sensitive, nor were they attempting to speak for anyone else.

It implied people that don't fall under the white male demographic can't laugh at things like this, which is still not true. I mean yeah, people have different senses of humor and all that, but it came out in a way that made it sound like it would be interpreted as offensive instead of just "meh".

Though I admit, I don't actually think the OP's comment was even that bad (like I said, it sounded more like just a jab at the 'white male' creators); but I do see this general trend that I'm talking about a lot, so I figured it might be helpful to bring it up.

Actually, the offensive nature of the humor would make it a great hit in Israel, if they released a Hebrew translation.

I love the game in small doses, but it's very obvious there wasn't much diversification in the team that made it. Not because it would have curbed the offensiveness, but because after two or three hours of playing [as happens in larger groups], and even with hundreds of cards and endless combinations, the formula of offensive card (either based on history, internet humor or shaming) + offensive card just isn't funny anymore and people become bored. They'd have benefited from including different folks so that the jokes were different and meant different things to different people. Part of the fun/unexpected educational aspect is learning what the cards are referring to if you don't know (forcing people to learn about things outside of their worldview in an effort to make them funnier is a great incentive).

As it stands, if you're not a gamer, aware of internet culture or you don't find tragedies hilarious, you may have a hard time finding enjoyment from it.

Personally I find the worst part of CAH is having to explain to that one innocent member of the group what the card that was just played means.

I (Hispanic) recently played with a group of Hispanic, black, old, young, and white people and it was hilarious/fun.

No, it's Apples to Apples except fun.

Comparing this game to Apples to Apples isn't really fair because the genius isn't in the formula (which is really basic) but in the content.

so you could say it's like comparing Apples to Oranges?

Badumpcha

yeah, it's a pretty hilarious game. Especially when combined with copious amounts of beer and the right kind of friends. I think this actually shows that there may be a big market for non-politically correct games and "stuff" that big burdened corporations won't touch, but the market would be more than willing to gobble up.

>Especially when combined with copious amounts of beer and the right kind of friends.

There's a brewpub local to me that has CAH nights.

Heh, plenty of businesses will touch this kind of stuff. Just walk through a novelty store at the mall like Spencers...

"Pixelated bukkake?!? Sooooooooo random XD"

Sorry, what?

More "South Park jokes", but yeah.

I swing back and forth on which one I like better. Cards Against Humanity is fun because it lets you come out and say truly horrible things. Apples to Apples is fun because it lets you imply truly horrible things in really creative ways.

At its best (read: I am indeed a horrible person), either one is like drawing a smiley face on Hitler.

> Cards Against Humanity is fun because it lets you come out and say truly horrible things. Apples to Apples is fun because it lets you imply truly horrible things in really creative ways.

To each their own, but this is precisely why I hate Cards Against Humanity. It ruins the joke by being too blunt and predictable.

I went through my collection of Cards Against Humanity and removed all the "not subtle" cards that are basically trying to be puerile. The game is a lot better, and I can now fit the good parts of the game + expansions into the original box.

Much of the time, I actually prefer Apples to Apples for just that reason.

My wife calls Apples to Apples the Cards Against Humanity for grandmas. (Her grandma really likes Apples to Apples)

Pretty much. My friends found that the game wore very quickly compared to Apples to Apples. Pick the most offensive one, it'll win. Down to luck really.

Perhaps this is out of the norm, but winning isn't relevant in the groups with which I have played the game. Laughing and having a good time until we are humored out is usually the point (we don't even keep score).

Similar, but you're matching words into phrases rather than adjectives with nouns.