funny stefan puppet

[Lars]

Am I the only one who's perplexed?

[lifegoesonbrah]

If he really knew that the majority of this board cannot process comedy, then he wouldn't have used comedy as either the sole or primary means of communicating with us. To do this is like first knowing that a guy doesn't speak English, and then speaking to him in English about something important in front of a large crowd of people. 

 

I could easily see someone doing that to make fun of, or look down upon, the non-English speaker - but I could never see someone doing that to enlighten the non-English speaker. 

 

As I stated, I expected that there would be a negative response, but I thought it would be more balanced and not overwhelmingly negative.

[Lars]

As I stated, I expected that there would be a negative response, but I thought it would be more balanced and not overwhelmingly negative.

Including "for the lulz" in the first post probably wasn't a good idea.

 

You could have started with asking everyone what they thought about the video rather than trying to immediately frame it as funny, or attempting to preemptively manage our response with "don't get all worked up". Even if you didn't mean to troll, that's how it comes off.

[prolix]

1. If he really knew that the majority of this board cannot process comedy, then he wouldn't have used comedy as either the sole or primary means of communicating with us. To do this is like first knowing that a guy doesn't speak English, and then speaking to him in English about something important in front of a large crowd of people. 

 

I could easily see someone doing that to make fun of, or look down upon, the non-English speaker - but I could never see someone doing that to enlighten the non-English speaker. 

 

 

 

 

2. I'm confused.  WHO are the good communicators with virtuous intent who being rejected?"

 

Give specific dates and times, please.  Because otherwise, you're not being a good communicator, nor are you communicating the virtue of your intent. 

1. Or maybe he just wanted to share a funny video he saw. The video is about stefan and this is his board, so... it kinda seems to me that it is more possible and realistic than the thing you made up. Mostly because that is what he has repeatedly said about his intentions. Your comparison falls flat immediately if we are to take him at his word and not try to cipher out what he "really" meant "if xyz". Are you calling him a liar?

 

2. I understand you are confused. So firstly. Me and lifegoesonbrah; right here and right now. I can go on and on. I definitely can easily go get the last few times that this has happened to me. And I can provide a few usernames off the top of my head. Out side of that I am going to have to go do a whole lot of digging. Which I am super open to doing, except for one thing; This very disappointment that I am asking for empathy about right now. As soon as someone shows curiosity about this subject and I can connect with them; I am more than happy to do this little research project and dig up the many examples from my memory and probably find many others. But here is the thing. When you yell "WHO are the good communicators with virtuous intent who being rejected?", when me and lifegoesonbrah are right here, when that happens, I do not feel very present in the conversation. I do not feel connected to you. So I am not inclined to put much effort into compiling a super detailed list if you missed that me and lifegoesonbrah are on that list for sure, right now. So I rest my statements on any curious parties who want to know details and I trust the average reader to judge for themselves when they see a user getting many negative rep points. I am simply pointing out a principle for consideration. I am merely relaying my experience, are you calling me a liar? I can also point to factual instances. but I really just want people to be more considerate, that is win-win right? If people are more considerate then everybody wins...

[MMX2010]

1. Or maybe he just wanted to share a funny video he saw. The video is about stefan and this is his board, so... it kinda seems to me that it is more possible and realistic than the thing you made up. Mostly because that is what he has repeatedly said about his intentions. Your comparison falls flat immediately if we are to take him at his word and not try to cipher out what he "really" meant "if xyz". Are you calling him a liar?

 

I'm taking him at his word and calling him a liar.

 

He has said, "Thank you, my intent was to share laughter, but I knew that anything insulting Stefan may cause an uprising. I was hoping that it would be more balanced."

 

His words mean, "The absolute best I could've realistically expected was that less-than-half of the board would find it funny, while more-than-half of the board would find it not funny / enraging."  Therefore, it was impossible for him to have a realistic intention of "sharing laughter". 

 

------------------------

 

First, you said, "Now look down at all the negative reps I got for expressing my experience. Case and point. I really urge this community to really think about the way they interact with unpopular ideas here and criticisms of FDR subjects in general."

 

So your first post is a loud criticism of the entire FDR community. 

 

 

 

 I understand you are confused. So firstly. Me and lifegoesonbrah; right here and right now. I can go on and on. I definitely can easily go get the last few times that this has happened to me. And I can provide a few usernames off the top of my head. Out side of that I am going to have to go do a whole lot of digging. Which I am super open to doing, except for one thing. 

 

But your second post sets conditions on providing evidence to support your accusation of the FDR community. 

 

It's really difficult to portray yourself as a "good communicator with virtuous intention" when you refuse to openly provide evidence AFTER you've loudly called out the community. 

[prolix]

 

I'm taking him at his word and calling him a liar.

 

He has said, "Thank you, my intent was to share laughter, but I knew that anything insulting Stefan may cause an uprising. I was hoping that it would be more balanced."

 

His words mean, "The absolute best I could've realistically expected was that less-than-half of the board would find it funny, while more-than-half of the board would find it not funny / enraging."  Therefore, it was impossible for him to have a realistic intention of "sharing laughter". 

 

------------------------

 

First, you said, "Now look down at all the negative reps I got for expressing my experience. Case and point. I really urge this community to really think about the way they interact with unpopular ideas here and criticisms of FDR subjects in general."

 

So your first post is a loud criticism of the entire FDR community. 

 

 

 

 

But your second post sets conditions on providing evidence to support your accusation of the FDR community. 

 

It's really difficult to portray yourself as a "good communicator with virtuous intention" when you refuse to openly provide evidence AFTER you've loudly called out the community. 

I am sorry. At this point your post just strikes me as malicious and unproductive. I do not have anything to add to what I previously said and I do not feel that you have responded or acknowledged anything I previously posted...

[prolix]

How empathetic is it to say that anybody that disagrees with you must not be empathetic?

Quote me saying that? Otherwise you are just putting words in my mouth. which is another thing that is happening a lot in this thread. Again, very disappointing...

[MMX2010]

Recently, prolix PM'ed me and said, Extremely poor communication in that thread on your part. I have to disengage. Best wishes and all that...

 

If people engaging with prolix agree that my communication in this thread has been "extremely poor", please disregard my post. 

 

But if you disagree that my communication was "extremely poor", then use his PM to me to reconsider engaging with him. 

[lifegoesonbrah]

 

I'm taking him at his word and calling him a liar.

 

He has said, "Thank you, my intent was to share laughter, but I knew that anything insulting Stefan may cause an uprising. I was hoping that it would be more balanced."

 

His words mean, "The absolute best I could've realistically expected was that less-than-half of the board would find it funny, while more-than-half of the board would find it not funny / enraging."  Therefore, it was impossible for him to have a realistic intention of "sharing laughter". 

 

 

Insulted was a bad word choice, maybe "make light of" or "emulate in a funny manner".

 

How am I a liar when I stated that I wanted to bring laughter, and expected many more people to find it funny? How is that an unrealistic intention?

[prolix]

Recently, prolix PM'ed me and said, Extremely poor communication in that thread on your part. I have to disengage. Best wishes and all that...

 

If people engaging with prolix agree that my communication in this thread has been "extremely poor", please disregard my post. 

 

But if you disagree that my communication was "extremely poor", then use his PM to me to reconsider engaging with him. 

You wat m8?

[lifegoesonbrah]

I double checked and you weren't called a name once. We're done here.

 Just taking a quick glance I was called a weirdo, a liar, and a concern troll, not to mention many insinuations. I could probably find more. You must be very angry with me to not see that.

[Kevin Beal]

 Just taking a quick glance I was called a weirdo

Yea man. I'm really sorry.

 

I don't like being called names either.

 

If you just wanted to share something you found entertaining, and not get pulled into an argument about the video, then I can definitely sympathize.

 

I see now that I mistook your comments about it just being a joke and not to take offense or anything, to be antagonizing.

 

I didn't actually find it funny, but maybe that's just me.

 

This thread has escalated into something pretty terrible, and I thought maybe if I could apologize and empathize that we could resolve this issue and move on to other topics that are a little less triggering. You don't want to get into an endlessly escalating back and forth with people over text on a message board, right? That can be fun for a bit, but then it just weighs on you having people antagonize you.

 

Provoke and be provoked. It's just grating. Like my soul is being slowly sucked out of my body.

 

Do you know what I mean?

[dsayers]

You must be very angry with me to not see that.

 

I must be. I mean, you said so. Why would you make that up? I suppose I should think about what I did.

 

Because you said so. Not because that's something you're willing to do. You know, putting forth a standard you exempt yourself form is the definition of manipulative.

[lifegoesonbrah]

I must be. I mean, you said so. Why would you make that up? I suppose I should think about what I did.

 

Because you said so. Not because that's something you're willing to do. You know, putting forth a standard you exempt yourself form is the definition of manipulative.

 

I must be. I mean, you said so. Why would you make that up? I suppose I should think about what I did.

 

Because you said so. Not because that's something you're willing to do. You know, putting forth a standard you exempt yourself form is the definition of manipulative.

 

Okay, so you admit you were wrong and people have been calling me names? Or are you just going to deflect again onto another accusation? It looks like the latter.

[MMX2010]

Insulted was a bad word choice, maybe "make light of" or "emulate in a funny manner".

 

How am I a liar when I stated that I wanted to bring laughter, and expected many more people to find it funny? How is that an unrealistic intention?

 

If you want to bring laughter to a large group of people, you DON'T say something that the majority of people in that group would find not-funny. 

[prolix]

I must be. I mean, you said so. Why would you make that up? I suppose I should think about what I did.

 

Because you said so. Not because that's something you're willing to do. You know, putting forth a standard you exempt yourself form is the definition of manipulative.

So, how did you miss that? You were 100% incorrect, in fact, he was called those names. And now you are being sarcastic about your mistake? I am sorry, I do not understand...

 

If you want to bring laughter to a large group of people, you DON'T say something that the majority of people in that group would find not-funny. 

So he is a liar because the video was not funny? Or he is a liar because he was trying to be funny by posting in this thread? I do not see what this has to do with anything. And the only reason I am even talking to you is to defend this other guy who has done nothing but be gracious and apologetic about multiple posters calling him names and putting words in his mouth.

 

You don't think the video is funny, great. but you want to go one further and try and insult the guy that just posted a video that, until proven otherwise, is relevant to this forum. I am open to hearing how you feel and this and that about the video. But the treatment of this OP in this thread is, as I said, very disappointing indeed...

[Mister Mister]

I think it is pretty fascinating how much of a stir this has created. Let me share my experience - I chuckled at the video at first, then had some nervous laughter at the "did you touch your own butthole as a child" part, then when the subtle criticism of "I was spanked as a boy, but boys and girls are different, and you only have a girl", came in, I was genuinely upset.  A lot of us were spanked as boys and have come to consider this as very wrong, and there is an underlying argument in this video that it is okay to spank (only) boys, presumably because they can be more rambunctious, defiant, difficult, etc... This is sexist and enabling, and personal to many of us, and particularly annoying when couched in this underhanded way.  It starts off as a silly video and subtly slips in a criticism of a pretty essential moral argument about spanking at the end without resolving anything.

 It is annoying when moral arguments are couched in the guise of humor, and all criticism is dismissed as "don't be so serious bro".  Jon Stewart and other sophists do this all the time.  My older brother used to be great at it.  He would shame me for being opinionated or passionate about something like war or the police, but at the same time he can get incredibly passionate about relatively shallow topics such as preferences in music or food.  So it's not an attack or criticism of you, but I am just sharing my experience that this video and your reaction to some of our criticism of it reminds me of emotional manipulation that I have experienced that really bothered me.

 It really seems to me that you came prepared to confront people on this board that:

  -we/they cannot tolerate criticism of Stef

  -don't have a sense of humor, take things too seriously
  I have seen many criticisms of things Stef has said on these forums, but I think it is appreciated when people own their arguments rather than hiding behind "it's just a joke".  Also I would say that anyone who enjoys FDR probably has a great sense of humor, in contrast to Alex Jones or Abby Martin or many other people who talk about serious issues, Stef has a great sense of humor IMO.  Without undermining peoples' feelings (most of the time) he is great at lightening up serious topics with humor.  I have found myself in stitches at many of his metaphors, insights, catching people on Freudian slips, etc.  Way funnier than the video you posted.  So I'm not sure that criticism is really accurate.  There is a time for seriousness and a time for humor, but you are trying to tell me that I am "too serious" because you find something funny while I find it offensive.  If you find it funny and I don't that's fine, but you are acting like my disagreement is an attack on you, which feels like a dismissal of my feelings.

 Perhaps a more constructive conversation would be about why you found it funny, and why others don't.  I tried to start this by explaining why it bothered me.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Just to let everyone know it turns out this guy posted this already held the opinion that we on the forums "have no real discussions on their forums because anyone that forms their own thoughts and opinions is voted down...

 

Total dick move.

[lifegoesonbrah]

Yea man. I'm really sorry.

 

I don't like being called names either.

 

If you just wanted to share something you found entertaining, and not get pulled into an argument about the video, then I can definitely sympathize.

 

I see now that I mistook your comments about it just being a joke and not to take offense or anything, to be antagonizing.

 

I didn't actually find it funny, but maybe that's just me.

 

This thread has escalated into something pretty terrible, and I thought maybe if I could apologize and empathize that we could resolve this issue and move on to other topics that are a little less triggering. You don't want to get into an endlessly escalating back and forth with people over text on a message board, right? That can be fun for a bit, but then it just weighs on you having people antagonize you.

 

Provoke and be provoked. It's just grating. Like my soul is being slowly sucked out of my body.

 

Do you know what I mean?

 

 

Thanks Kevin, that means a lot. I am sorry if myself or the video offended you.

[prolix]

Just to let everyone know it turns out this guy posted this already held the opinion that we on the forums "have no real discussions on their forums because anyone that forms their own thoughts and opinions is voted down...

 

Total dick move.

Do you have a link?

[prolix]

Just to let everyone know it turns out this guy posted this already held the opinion that we on the forums "have no real discussions on their forums because anyone that forms their own thoughts and opinions is voted down...

 

Total dick move.

Really struggling to comprehend what you are trying to communicate here. He posted this on another forum? Because...

 

http://goo.gl/D0OIwb

[Josh -Lel-]

I thought it was funny until the the part about spanking, then it became bothersome because it seemed like he would be making fun of actual conversations.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Josh -Lel-

[Kernowek]

I laughed when the eyes fell off, does everything have to be all serious all the time?

[dsayers]

does everything have to be all serious all the time?

 

Can you identify anybody in the history of man that has made such a claim? Joining just to post this raises suspicions.

[Brentb]

Can you identify anybody in the history of man that has made such a claim? Joining just to post this raises suspicions.

 

When I was 19 I thought that fun was for losers.

 

I think the members of this forum take things very seriously - which has both it's advantages and disadvantages. 

 

What I see here is people treating an aesthetic issue with all the seriousness of a moral issue.

[prolix]

Can you identify anybody in the history of man that has made such a claim? Joining just to post this raises suspicions.

Yea, well when the guy posts a comedy video and he get's personally attacked, while he is apologizing. Then I do think an evaluation of seriousness levels need to be made...

[prolix]

When I was 19 I thought that fun was for losers.

 

I think the members of this forum take things very seriously - which has both it's advantages and disadvantages. 

 

What I see here is people treating an aesthetic issue with all the seriousness of a moral issue.

This.

[Kernowek]

Can you identify anybody in the history of man that has made such a claim? Joining just to post this raises suspicions.

 

im not sure i follow, the purpose of joining is to post

[WasatchMan]

When I was 19 I thought that fun was for losers.

 

I think the members of this forum take things very seriously - which has both it's advantages and disadvantages. 

 

What I see here is people treating an aesthetic issue with all the seriousness of a moral issue.

 

Are you not concerned that actual communication/ideas can be included in "funny", and that it is usually a passive aggressive tactic because someone couldn't have gotten away with it in normal communication but they know people will shame others for not having a sense of humor if they disagree?

[MMX2010]

Are you not concerned that actual communication/ideas can be included in "funny", and that it is usually a passive aggressive tactic because someone couldn't have gotten away with it in normal communication but they know people will shame others for not having a sense of humor if they disagree?

 

It's funnier than that, because people engage in serious considerations of aesthetic perspectives all the time.

 

On this message board, I remember serious discussions of aesthetic perspectives such as: (1) To what extent is transgender a biologically real phenomenon, and if it's to a low extent, should we ignore all of their demands for better treatment?  (2) To what extent is being a carnivore an expression of violence against innocent beings?  (3) To what extent is being a sports fan both a waste of time and a support of state violence?  (4) To what extent can psychoactive drugs (like hallucinogens) either fast-track an already existing therapeutic approach OR substitute for therapy entirely?  (5) What types of journaling produce the quickest improvements in self-knowledge?  (6) What types of cognitive practices most quickly enhance one's motivation?

 

Insinuating that anyone who takes a specific aesthetic issue seriously lacks a sense of humor is to protect oneself from criticism (as you've said).  But that tactic becomes less and less effective as the same person applies it to more and more aesthetic issues. 

[William Wyatt]

not funny

The only part I laughed at was right at the start when he said "I have to stop you right there, see it's customary to ...." The rest was filth. 

 

It was a light jab at Stefan's tendency to sometimes take a small point that a listener makes, then go on a 5 minute rant. Which Stefan personally admits is a habit of his, not necessarily a bad habit, or a good habit. But just a habit or trait, much like someone who turns leans their head wen observing things, or a singer who says "yeaaaahhhh" or "ooohhhhhh" a lot. It's not neccessarily bad. Just a trait that can be tastefully mocked. Something you and your friends could do to each other, then give them a big hug afterwards and say "but I love you for it"

 

But I found everything after that repulsive and completely missing the point of Stefan's work, feeding into these bullshit cult accusations. I stopped the video at 2 minutes because it seemed like more of an attack. So in essence, you're dead on brother!

[Brentb]

Are you not concerned that actual communication/ideas can be included in "funny", and that it is usually a passive aggressive tactic because someone couldn't have gotten away with it in normal communication but they know people will shame others for not having a sense of humor if they disagree?

 

I'm not concerned about that. I don't understand how someone could be made to feel ashamed for not laughing at something.

 

I get that comedy can often have an agenda, and that when it has an agenda that I don't agree with, then I won't likely find it funny. 

 

If someone in your personal life makes an offhand comment that's offensive to you, and tries to play it off as comedy, that's probably passive aggressive because it's probably about you.

 

A comedian writing a joke or a sketch is not likely to be passive aggressive. People who are trying to make people laugh are typically doing just that - trying to make people laugh. They're not trying to change you the way that someone in your life might. Their incentive is in getting laughs and feeling accepted and valued by people, not messing with stranger's heads.

[Jamiroquai]

I'm not concerned about that. I don't understand how someone could be made to feel ashamed for not laughing at something.

 

I get that comedy can often have an agenda, and that when it has an agenda that I don't agree with, then I won't likely find it funny. 

 

If someone in your personal life makes an offhand comment that's offensive to you, and tries to play it off as comedy, that's probably passive aggressive because it's probably about you.

 

A comedian writing a joke or a sketch is not likely to be passive aggressive. People who are trying to make people laugh are typically doing just that - trying to make people laugh. They're not trying to change you the way that someone in your life might. Their incentive is in getting laughs and feeling accepted and valued by people, not messing with stranger's heads.

 

Exactly...I feel like people are sort of bullying the guy who posted this video, just because it was poking a little fun at Stefan.

 

If there was a puppet show about TZM or Peter Joseph, and it was posted here, I find it to be very likely that the only responses would be posts of laughter and "this is hilarious". People are getting overly defensive in this thread.

[AustinJames]

I experienced strong emotions reading this thread.  I didn't read the whole thing, so let me know if I'm off-base.

 

I'm angry.  I feel like this thread is a perfect demonstration of philosophical distraction, and I resent its existence.  Two pages, dozens of comments about a paper bag puppet with a few crude jokes; is this really worth your time?  Is this the cause you ought to be diverting your precious energy toward?  Every time someone clicks on that video, the creator is positively reinforced for his contemptible behavior.  I feel resentful toward the original poster.  I feel resentful toward many of the individuals whom have driven this inane conversation forward.  

 

I don't plan to be posting anything more on this thread, but if my comments are disconcerting to anyone, I invite you to send me a private message.

[J. D. Stembal]

Exactly...I feel like people are sort of bullying the guy who posted this video, just because it was poking a little fun at Stefan.

 

If there was a puppet show about TZM or Peter Joseph, and it was posted here, I find it to be very likely that the only responses would be posts of laughter and "this is hilarious". People are getting overly defensive in this thread.

 

Could any amount of satire make Peter Joseph funny? Anyway, the content of the video is irrelevant to this conversation. It was the presentation of the video that welcomed the reaction.

 

We didn't bully the original poster at all. He posted the video knowing full well what the overall reaction would be, feigned a desire to spread laughter, contradicted himself in a later post, and took it personally when few thought it was funny. It's not even his video. That's kindergarten level, passive-aggressive troll behavior, like Brentb suggested - a person that insults you to your face, then tells you to laugh it off when you take offense. In fact, he overtly suggests that we lack a sense of humor in his first post before we had a chance to watch it.

 

Compare this thread to any of the ones Ken Cotton has started. At least Ken puts effort and a little thought into his posts, but we are very aware that he's deriving a deep pleasure in asking us to spin our wheels in the mud of relativist philosophy engaging with him..