Why Six is REALLY Afraid of Seven

Okay, this title is a bit misleading. I don't want to talk about the personal lives of the poor saps we see in jokes. I don't know where the chicken went after she crossed the road, and I don't really care. What I do want to talk about is the value of analyzing humor.

Is it a good thing that we dissect something like humor apart to examine why it makes us laugh? How is this any different from the person who overanalyzes jokes, completely missing the humor?

I do believe that there is a difference. The person who makes a joke un-funny analyzes the fictional characters and situations present in jokes. This person would care about the chicken who crossed the road. "What was a chicken doing by the road? Isn't that what chicken fences are for? I don't really get this joke, it doesn't make any sense."

However, a person who analyzes humor doesn't pick apart the story in the joke, but rather the parts of it that make it funny to us. For instance, why use a chicken? Would people laugh harder if it was a duck? Also, wordplay, incongruities, and vulgarity are analyzed. If you don't  think anyone really looks carefully at humor, let me tell you about the search for the funniest joke in the world.

A cognitive scientist named Richard Wiseman created LaughLab in his epic quest for the funniest joke in the world. (If you look at the LaughLab website, yes, that's him next to the giant chicken.) The "funniest joke in the world" isn't bad, but not gut-wrenchingly funny, probably because jokes that appeal to everyone aren't neccessarily the favorites of the individual. It's a fact of life that people have different senses of humor.

All of us get a chance, sometimes against our will, to take a closer look at humor. It's not uncommon for classes studying a piece of literature, such as Shakespeare, to analyze what about it is funny, and why. I went through this, as many people do. Perhaps it would not have worked so well with more modern humor, but analysis actually helped me understand some of the archaic quips present in The Merchant of Venice. But even with modern humor, I find it interesting to think about why we laugh.

So, I say, let's find out why it's funny when a blonde in a potato sack cries, "Potatoes! Potatoes!" Let's examine why ducks are funnier than turtledoves. There's nothing wrong with that. Pick away, pick away!

Just don't forget to skip over the laughing part.

Ylerecnis,

N

P.S. I apologize for not having written for a while. I've been falling behind, entirely at my own fault.

True Freethinkers Are Independent and Unorganized

I have absolutely no problem with adults choosing to practice their own religions, as long as they don't interfere with the lives and beliefs of others, or put the people in their communities in a position where they are oppressed (virgin sacrifices would be an example). It's their own business. I have a right to call them nuts, but I would not interfere with their preferred religion.

One thing that really bothers me, though, is how children get religion drilled into their minds. From birth, they are taught to follow whoever it is they're worshipping without question. They are taught that the best form of faith is to not ask questions, which I see as an absolute abomination. It's interesting, though, that even as an atheist, I think that children should be left out of atheism. Children should not be brought into religion at all. We don't bring them into political activity- religion is another thing that they should choose alone. Things such as Kids on Fire (albeit a bit of an extreme example) that scare and guilt kids into upholding certain beliefs disgust me to my core. (I recommend watching the Jesus Camp documentary on YouTube. A couple of people have put it up there in its entirety.)

I'm glad to see that most young atheists seem to be self-made, but I have to admit that it scares me that atheism is growing into an organization. "Organized freethinking" is supposed to be an oxymoron! I've got nothing against humanist and atheist organizations, such as American Atheists and the other atheist/secular organizations around the world, and I'll root for their cause (not oppressing religion, but increasing tolerance for atheists and keeping America both secular and religiously free, who are, as is so well documented, considered less trusted than homosexuals and Muslims)- but honestly, I wouldn't want to be a part of that. I suppose that it's a good thing that some of the people who hold similar views to mine are making themselves heard, but there's a reason why I hold myself as an independent thinker.

Not to say that children shouldn't be taught some of the morals found in religion, however. All people should be taught, from a young age, the basic values that make up our society, such as respect, citizenship, etc.

I can't stop people from teaching their children about things that no one really knows, and I shouldn't, either, but I know that if I breathe a word about religion to my future children, it will be in response to questions that they have. I will encourage them to think on their own, inviting them to learn about as many religious positions as they like, the more the better. Because whether any child of mine is atheist, Christian, pagan, Muslim, Hindu, or agnostic, one major thing is important to me- that my children be free thinkers.

Ylerecnis,

N

Conservative Media

This is absolutely crazy. Scary-crazy.

I was doing an internet search when I encountered Conservapedia.com. It's modeled after Wikipedia, except that it embodies the world according to the Republican party. This is why it's a ".com," not an ".org," like Wikipedia. Obviously, it slants heavily to the right.

What I find scary about this is that someone made an entire online encyclodpedia that isn't a fair, unbiased source. This is a gay-bashing, bible-thumping, evolution-denying website that is modeled after a real website that works hard at being fair and accurate. (Ironically, Conservapedia's motto is "The Truthful Encyclopedia.") This really freaks me out, really and truthfully. Check it out and be aware. Or, if they agree with you, rejoice. I can't hold it against you if there's an entire website devoted to the world as you see it and you're happy about it.

A note of interest- I couldn't find anything like it for liberalism. Perhaps that's because, as they say, most media has a left slant anyway?

Note to the reader: I'm a constitionalist. It's one of the crosses between liberalism and conservatism.

Ylerecnis,
N

Subtract Garfield, Add Depth

This is the most serious, heartrending, sympathetic, tear-jerking cartoon ever.

Well... it might be, if you didn't know what it was before.

I recently learned about an ingenious creation known as "Garfield Minus Garfield." It's very simple- someone took Garfield out of the comic. Of course, considering that Jon talks to Garfield, you know what this means...

This is the story of Jon Arbuckle. His is a story of schizophrenia, bipolor disorder, and the empty desperation of modern life. Let’s laugh and learn with him on a journey deep into the tortured mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against lonliness in a quiet American suburb.