Technically if you farted that’d just simply be a fart joke. To use the Wikipedia page for joke’s definition of a joke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke), puns would be considered a joke insofar as they are the punchline and generate humor (the purpose of a joke). They fit all 6 criterion of the General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH), and the criterion under many other theories. So yes they are.

Puns are considered jokes, though. A type/genre of joke yes but a joke nevertheless. And that’s a fair point. However, simply because a joke is at someone’s expense does not mean it’s intended just to piss them off though.

That’s a fair point. However, simply because a joke has a punchline that it derives humor from at the expense of the punchline does not necessarily mean it’s designed to piss them off. Furthermore, what about puns, or jokes that have the butt of the joke be some inanimate object or social construct, such as Mondays at work or something? Quick disclaimer too I’m not some SJW who just REEEEEs at something an labels it as a social construct, but obviously the concept isn’t necessarily a false one even if idiots have co opted it. Furthermore I’m not saying all social constructs are bad.

Technically speaking, not all humor is designed to do so. However, humor is subjective to a degree and as such will ultimately function that way and piss someone off, even if that angry reaction is simply an “I don’t like this joke.”. But yeah, the left can’t meme for shit

I wonder what Bobby B thinks of an RP account banning you Edit: damnit I tried to summon the Bobby B bot and I failed. RIPeroni

Yes there is a degree of subjectivity to this. When I said subjective prior I was more referring to a specific kind of subjectivity-subjectivity based on ideology rather than universally applying principles of right and wrong. Sorry if that didn’t come across clearly, that’s on me. Nor did I say “everyone else” is morally bankrupt. For one I’m fairly sure my “armed revolution is only good in a tyrannical system that won’t let you change” is a common idea. It’s derived from the Just War Theory. Furthermore, you’re implying I’m presuming moral superiority. I’m not, I’m just as capable as you or anyone else of making morally wrong decisions. Lastly, if you take objection with the Just War Theory, prove it wrong then. Edit-here’s a Wikipedia article explaining the just war theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

The qualifier is literally “is the system fair and will it let you affect change without violence?” to shorten it. If the answer is yes you’re indeed being morally silly (cases of self defense aside as well). I’m not simply saying “this person disagrees with me therefore they are morally faulty”, rather I am saying “they are morally bankrupt therefore I disagree with them (along with other reasons pertaining to what they say).”. So yes I care about political violence when I see footage of antifa beating people in the streets, when I see footage of some sick fuck running people down with his car, and when some assholes dressed in black chuck milkshakes at people they disagree with, actively attempt to physically harass them and bar them from town, and/or a gang of black clad delinquents start storming a legally approved rally, stabbing a child and being physically aggressive (link below). I care when people who are glorified NEETs LARPing as and playing at being communist or Nazi revolutionaries are in the streets making discourse almost impossible to occur when they go around beating people. -MDL (Muslim Defense League) acting violently: https://youtu.be/QVDtmAb68KM (Sorry I couldn’t find the original footage I saw of them where it had a better view of the violence. And I’d like to say I understand it’s Rebel Media but I hardly think that on the ground footage can be doctored.)

If it’s in a liberal democratic republic or a comparable system that guarantees freedom and the ability to affect political change legitimately within the system (in principle and at least somewhat in practice), then unequivocally yes. Now, if it’s within a system that’s a tyrannical authoritarian state which doesn’t guarantee freedoms and the ability to affect change (both within principle and practice), then the only two qualifiers I would stipulate is 1) that every other means of affecting change must be exhausted first, and 2) civilian and innocents casualties are limited to their absolute bare minimum. I’ll use the galactic empire as an example as it’s easier and less likely to piss anyone off genuinely: the rebels tried everything they could’ve before resorting to guerilla warfare, the state fit the criterion above, and the rebels didn’t at all go around out of their way killing innocents and civilians, they only struck against military targets. To tie this back to our current reality, day, and age: we don’t live in one of those tyrannical systems here in the US, and we can certainly affect political change here arguably. In the U.K. it is less like that but it’s similar enough that it still doesn’t warrant political violence. And even if one were to say violence there against one’s opponents as acceptable, the people getting milkshaked have a stronger case for that. As such I’d recommend NOT arguing in favor of violence in this context given how the center and right have a stronger case for reacting in such a way in the U.K. Not that I’d condone it, but still. Don’t make the argument that would backfire on you. So to answer your question: under our current system, yes, I unequivocally oppose all political violence.

It’s political violence nevertheless, so you seem to really subjectively pick and choose which instances of violence you care about. And if you wanna think that you can, just don’t pretend to care about political violence then.

It’s definitely violence. Throwing things at someone with a malicious intent is definitely violence, even if it’s relatively seemingly minor. And as for your statement about not caring cuz there’s worse things out there: that doesn’t fucking matter at all. Like, two wrongs don’t make a right. Also, why even bring up Heather Heyer’s (I don’t know if I misspelled that pardon me) death? Sure it’s relevant to the conversation insofar as it’s an example of political violence, yet it’s irrelevant aside from that. To go back to the first part of this point, though, two wrongs quite frankly don’t make a right. Lastly, not caring about something doesn’t make it not violence. Violence is violence regardless if you care about it or not. At least be honest here if you’re going to subjectively cherry pick instances of violence that you care about. If you still can’t see my point, let me use a counter example: Would you not say that one woman chucking her shoe at Bush Jr wasn’t violence? To apply your standards, it didn’t necessarily matter (least of all to anyone’s personal interests), and people didn’t care a lot when it happened if I remember correctly (a rather poor standard really if it’s to decide what’s violence or what’s not violence.). Yet, that would definitely be an example of political violence. Another counter example would be the very example you bring up. Using your own reasoning one could subjectively say it didn’t matter because it was a symptom of a growing problem on the far left, and if I had shakier morals that were that of an ideologue, I could just as easily say that I didn’t care frankly about her death as it was a response directed at antifa‘s violent behavior and thuggish attempts to silence anyone and everyone that is left of Karl Marx.

Assault is assault. It’s wrong across the board, it’s wrong when people from the alt right do it and it’s wrong when people from the left do it. It’s wrong period, and discourages civil, rational discourse. It encourages censorship derived from mob rule, in turn radicalizing people. If you honestly cannot see that, you have a problem and I hope you go get help for it because a well adjusted and mature adult who has their priorities straight doesn’t condone assault/political violence from anyone at all or think of it as understandable and/or negligible.

If anything it’s rather tame there and promotes a lot of discussion. Like, there’s a ton of instances of people that clearly don’t watch Sargon coming in and posting, and every time that happens people actually engage in discussion.