Yeah, I don't really see a lot of funny in this. It reminds me of SNL on a week when they couldn't think of anything that really worked, but still had to put on a show.
The Lent bit was an attempt at humor. I was just tired last night when I posted this.
Part of it is the breaking of expectations, but that isn't unexpected the second time he does it. The tiny, post-explanation nods to a larger context are amusing: the black power fist after the Kamala headline, the "mind -- blown" reference to JFK getting shot in the head after the RFK Jr headline.
When a joke is repeated, it is often not funny. Each successive telling makes it less funny. Yet there is a breakthrough point for the persistent, that at the 11th or 17th repetition it suddenly becomes funny, which lasts over repeated retellings.
I don't know why, but it is the reason why Monty Python's Holy Grail only drew chuckles when it came out in theaters, but in constant rereference became one of the centers of humor since the mid 70s.
It struck me that the unfunniness of Mann's presentation was deliberate: he was making fun of all those people [who] get angry at The Babylon Bee over its satire.
So, Schrodinger, Godel, and Chomsky walk into a bar. Schrodinger says "We must be in a joke. But is it funny?" Godel says "We will never be able to tell if it is funny, because we are inside the joke." Chomsky sputters and says "Of course it's funny! You're just not telling it right."
TD, it's not quite Universal Grammar, but it is a linguistics/psychology of mind reference. Chomsky believed there was a difference between competence and performance in language. It gets pretty abstruse after that, so the joke might be funny in the ideal, to an ideal speaker-hearer, but not funny in performance.
I have to admit that I find that movie very annoying, in spite of the fact that it has some hilarious moments, because it disabled Arthurian work from being taken seriously for generations. Nobody can engage with the most important British literary work of all time anymore without people quoting Monty Python to them.
14 comments:
Yeah, I don't really see a lot of funny in this. It reminds me of SNL on a week when they couldn't think of anything that really worked, but still had to put on a show.
I think it's funny and also have no idea why. I'm not even doing Lent stuff.
The Lent bit was an attempt at humor. I was just tired last night when I posted this.
Part of it is the breaking of expectations, but that isn't unexpected the second time he does it. The tiny, post-explanation nods to a larger context are amusing: the black power fist after the Kamala headline, the "mind -- blown" reference to JFK getting shot in the head after the RFK Jr headline.
When a joke is repeated, it is often not funny. Each successive telling makes it less funny. Yet there is a breakthrough point for the persistent, that at the 11th or 17th repetition it suddenly becomes funny, which lasts over repeated retellings.
I don't know why, but it is the reason why Monty Python's Holy Grail only drew chuckles when it came out in theaters, but in constant rereference became one of the centers of humor since the mid 70s.
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
It struck me that the unfunniness of Mann's presentation was deliberate: he was making fun of all those people [who] get angry at The Babylon Bee over its satire.
Eric Hines
That's a good point
So, Schrodinger, Godel, and Chomsky walk into a bar. Schrodinger says "We must be in a joke. But is it funny?" Godel says "We will never be able to tell if it is funny, because we are inside the joke." Chomsky sputters and says "Of course it's funny! You're just not telling it right."
See, now that’s funny!
I get the set up, but the punchline is just ... UG.
No, actually I don't think I get it. Is it that Chomsky is a linguist, which is all about how things are told? So it's not a Universal Grammar joke?
Of course, this opens me up to, "Well, Tom, the joke is, you see, that Chomsky said, "Of course it's funny! You're just not telling it right."
Just for completion, something else on the Bee video is that the headlines themselves are funny.
TD, it's not quite Universal Grammar, but it is a linguistics/psychology of mind reference. Chomsky believed there was a difference between competence and performance in language. It gets pretty abstruse after that, so the joke might be funny in the ideal, to an ideal speaker-hearer, but not funny in performance.
OK. Thanks.
I have to admit that I find that movie very annoying, in spite of the fact that it has some hilarious moments, because it disabled Arthurian work from being taken seriously for generations. Nobody can engage with the most important British literary work of all time anymore without people quoting Monty Python to them.
Post a Comment