The Workermonkey

Thursday, September 01, 2005

corrections, retractions, and omissions 

# posted by josh @ 9/01/2005 04:36:00 PM

i deleted the post with the tasteless jokes, and all the comments which ensued. unfortunately i also deleted my advice to brancy, so to him i say i'm there for you bud if you need to air issues, vent, or want advice.

however, i dont think that it is a necessary conclusion that one who tells tasteless jokes (including racist ones) is racist or deplorable. stereotypes are perpetuated in society thru many means, and admittedly jokes are one. however, to say that one cannot joke about something without believing in something is inductive reasoning, which means that its premises do not demand its conclusion. take the statement "studies show that smokers suffer from lung cancer much more often than people who dont smoke" and the conclusion that smokers are more likely to suffer from lung cancer than nonsmokers. the premise does not demand the conclusion. sure, as a whole, perhaps its more likely. but if you take any given smoker compared to any given nonsmoker, it is possible to have a situation where the nonsmoker is more likely to suffer from lung cancer than the smoker (say, family history of cancer)

similarly, imagine A, B, and C have the qualities of X, Y, and Z. D resembles A, B, and C in that it has the qualities of X and Y. so we would infer that D also has the property of Z. but htis is not a necessary conclusion. say ABC are cats, which have the qualities of X (fur), Y (four-legged), and Z (meowing). D could be a dog, in which case it still has fur (X) and 4 legs (Y), but does NOT have the characteristic of Z.

the smoking example thwarts the argument that even if most people who tell tasteless jokes are tasteless, than the next person who tells one also will be. the cat example shows that just cuz item 1 has the same qualities as item 2 (e.g. tells tasteless jokes), it does not necessitate that the former falls into the same category as the latter.

listen, i apologize to anyone who read the jokes and was offended. i would like ot point out that many jokes do isolate someone or something as the butt of the joke. so lets stick to jokes the victim of whom chose to be where they are, people without feelings, like lawyers, janitors, and politicians.

Q. what do you call 1 million lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A. a good start

8 comments

watch the movie "crash" good stereotype movie. i think i missed all the comments

i have heard a few tastless teri shavio jokes, anyone? then theres all wyas the most classless joke of all...... "how many jews can you fit in a volkswagon?"

if you know the answer, dont post it.

By  ron, at Thursday, September 01, 2005 4:45:00 PM  

I heard "crash" was really good.
And yeah, I've been thinking - there really isn't any kind of joke where someone or something is not at the receiving end, even if it's the joke-teller or audience itself.
"I bought a new printer today. This printer is so bad that..." etc.
Someone try to think of a subjectless joke. You will be the least funny person ever.

By  DJ Booze Piñata, at Thursday, September 01, 2005 4:59:00 PM  

You racist bastard!

By  Anonymous, at Thursday, September 01, 2005 5:00:00 PM  

I know how to fit 100 jews in a volkswagon. Two words: Time Machine.

By  Anonymous, at Friday, September 02, 2005 6:44:00 AM  

the only punch line i can think of involves a furnace

By  Supreme Monkey Overlord, at Friday, September 02, 2005 9:19:00 AM  

I did not see any other comments after mine on the joke, but it sounds like people agreed?

Whether or not the tellers of racist jokes are racist depends on how you define racist. For people to understand the joke and the punchline, they must share a perception of the joke's subject. If the joke used in the post for example were told to and person from a remote place, who was unfamiliar with Mexico, it would not be very funny would it? And to find such as joke funny, a person must at least have an appreciation for the perception. Certainly if a person believed the total opposite, the joke again would not even make sense (stick a people you respect in for Mexicans in the joke.) Before I step off my soapbox, I unfortunately, often do find racist jokes funny, and I am aware that I am racist, sexist, and follow most stereotypes of white Americans. But I have learned to think consciously of it, and hopefully help the situation.

As for your reasoning examples: The smoking one is about probability and statistics, which are useless in individual cases, as they describe trends which are seen over time. We can think of many examples of this in poker.

In the second example, maybe just because my mind is trained in engineering, but I would not infer that D shared in property Z, since there was never a relationship established because X,Y, and Z. Knowing nothing about these properties, it is a total stab in the dark to assume D has Z, as the example you used shows.

By  Damon, at Friday, September 02, 2005 10:23:00 AM  

the ABC/XYZ example is not as clear cut when you take letters away and are viewing real events in life. hte letters more clearly show how the logic fails, and that's why its easier to see why you shouldn't infer property Z just cuz something has X and Y. that's exactly my point. but in real life its not as easy to distinguish. but i agree with you

By  josh, at Friday, September 02, 2005 1:57:00 PM  

what is this the GRE's

By  ron, at Sunday, September 04, 2005 4:45:00 PM  

Post a Comment