A challenge for all you Tate (not the gallery) fans out there!

izzit dat da mini-skirt woz so tight dat yooz were walkin' like pengwin? innit boomshakkalakka anna pocketful o' cheeze There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

*runs in with a gag*

I have absolutely no idea what is going on here

That's what lauren said when she realised she was alive. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Is it that pepsoid is the mostest unfunny person in the histree of abctales who thinks he is funny, though, get me?

No, it's that Catherine Tate is the most skull-crunchingly unfunny comedian to ever appear on TV and for some reason, Pepsoid and Yan are emulating one of her running jo... no, ske.... er, exchanges of dialogue. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Pepsoid embodies that Johnsonian witticism about the man who is not only dull but the cause of dullness in others. He is a humour sinkhole and his inane chuntering spreads like tribbles.

amma bovvered? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Oh... when you said you ran in with a gag Fish, i thought you meant you had something FUNNY How disappointing.

Pepsoid. Could you not post such huge long thread titles? Youi are fucking up the format as well. It offends my aesthetic senses.

I love Catherine Tate. Off course, comedy is subjective. Which is why it's repugnant to see people using it as a reason to attack others. If you don't like Catherine Tate then feel free to express your subjective opinion but when you utilise it to display your own prejudice it's a tad revealing. ;) jack - judging by the grandiose delusions that characterise the majority of your posts I'd be surprised if you found anything funny. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

I have no idea who Catherine Tate is but after Yan's spirited defence I think I already hate her.

I dislike both Catherine Tate and any creation by Sacha Baron Cohen. Their form of 'humour' appeals to impressionable kids and Richard Madeley...I need say no more!

"Off course, comedy is subjective." But Tate isn't comedy. She's Tesco Value Sketch-Show. Take any phrase - any at all - repeat until it's a catchphrase. If you find that funny, you're the kind of person who would probably find someone repeatedly being hit in the face funny, if it was on TV and used to advertise Woolworths. Jokes are funny. Have you tried these? Have you encountered them? Can you recognise them? ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'Take any phrase - any at all - repeat until it's a catchphrase' I must admit I wouldn't find 'any phrase' humorous. "I think I'll take the dog for a walk" repeated isn't going to make me laugh and probably wouldn't score well on ratings. I'm not into catchphrases myself. You'll never hear me shouting "garlic bread?" because I think it humiliates people who don't appreciate that form of humour. You'd probably have to group Peter Kay and The Fast Show in with Tate as Tesco Value humour. So I take it you don't like those shows either? I'll let you in on Tesco Value goods, btw. I used to work at a company that made a certain tesco value goods alongside its internationally renowned products. The tesco value and the branded product were exactly the same but just different in cost. Talking about dogs, you walk into any sainsbury's store and pick up a bag of 'Sainsbury's Scout Mixer' you'll be unaware that 'Asda Hero Mixer' is exactly the same product manufactured by the same company...but costs less in asda. Which says something about subjectivity in itself. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Depends on the product. A lot of Tesco value stuff is genuinely awful compared to its standard range. Try the lemonade, for instance. Peter Kay is funny. I can't recall a single catchphrase of his - every episode of 'That Peter Kay Thing' was about a different set of characters and 'Phoenix Nights' didn't really have any repetitive lines either. The Fast Show was OK - funnier when I was younger. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

A whole section is devoted to Kay's 'catchphrases' at wikipedia - garlic bread being one of approx 20. I can recall 2 catchphrases used by Tate ("am I bothered and "how very dare you"). In fact, her programme relies very little on catchphrases. 'If you find that funny, you're the kind of person who would probably find someone repeatedly being hit in the face funny' I've never heard of a harmless comedy show being compared to watching another being repeatedly hit in the face, but things like this do create industries from demand so I suppose there may some entertainment value in it. As I said, it's subjective. No need to launch an offensive on a guy just because he prefers a different 'form' of humour to you. And in fact we've probably just revealed that there really isn't much difference anyway. You laugh at "Cheesecake" and peps laughs at "how very dare you". So what! There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Catherine Tate like her inspirations in Little Britain has misunderstood the difference between comedy and repititive nastiness. I don't have a problem with nasty comedy - comedy with no pain element is unlikely to be funny at all - but both these shows simply encourage people to laugh at crude caricatures of people they don't like, without taking the trouble to include any ideas or jokes. In the old days, people on the margins of society were thrown in the stocks and pelted with rotten tomatoes - Tate, Walliams and the other guy are performing the same service for a mass audience. It's tedious and unpleasant.

'If you find that funny, you're the kind of person who would probably find someone repeatedly being hit in the face funny' Well that would depend largely on who the someone was? In fact if it was someone hit repeatedly in the face by a fish that would describe my favourite monty python sketch. Whenever someone dissmisses comedy as just nastiness etc. it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Cruelty IS sometimes funny, and so is poking fun at the innocent. Personally I couldn't stand Absolutely Fabulous, all the characters annoyed me apart from saffy and all the jokes were lost on me, but enough people who's opinion I respect thought it was brilliant that I'm prepared to accept I'm in the wrong and it's my loss. Comedy defies analysis. And has always famously done so. Dissmissing Little Britain is as 'simply encouraging people to laugh at crude caricatures' is meaningless and unfair, almost any great comedy could be dissmissed thus. Yes what Bukarinsbiggestfan said was true, but Little Britain also played cleverly on the differences between what the characters were and how they presented themselves, Lou wasn't dissabled, the biggest gay in the village wasn't gay etc. The goon show could be equally dissmissed as a mess of silly voices with a dash of light racism and no coherent plot, but it still cracks me up every time.

Again, it's purely subjective. Maybe it says more about the viewer's sense of humour when making comments like 'nasty comedy'. A fat person may sit there and laugh his flabby tits off at the weight watchers sketch because he/she has the inspiring ability to laugh at themselves. Would this person consider it nasty? If you were to remind a person that their frequent displays of pomposity were amusing, how would they react to that? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

I don't think comedy is beyond analysis. Most jokes can be explained on some level. The most memorable ones are usually incisive in some way ie. they make the ludicrosity of something very apparent. Playing on what is expected/not expected by an audience also works. There's a good Goon Show joke about finding a pair of outboard motors in the boat and using them to row ashore. Even when comedy is being 'nasty', the nastiness is usually just adding a sort of cathartic edge to the joke - carthartic because in order for us to find it funny, we have to believe, on some level, that the target deserves this treatment. Stuff which targets wholly innocent victims can also be funny, but for different reasons - I think, perhaps, on a much more childish level - the humour of something that's simply outrageous. It's cartoon humour. David's objection to Tate's characters is, I think, that they appeal to the part of us that wants to make comedy out of people we hate because it's easier to laugh at them than comprehend them. It's observational humour that requires a kind of ignorance to succeed. There's a similar sort of thing that happens on the Internet all the time. When people get into tiffs online, they seem to invariably turn to pisspoor attempts at group comedy mocking. "OMG - DeetEvans1 is such a tool I bet his mum is a toolbox." "ROFL! HYSTERICAL! THAT IS SO TRUE! I SPILT MY COFFEE!" Republicans try to tell jokes about Democrats, and the BNP try to crack jokes about Muslims. In each case, the joke may be bad or good (and is usually bad or non-existant) but it's more about the target. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I love Little Britain. I don't care if it's crass or pushes the envelope of grossness. Why does humour always require deep thought behind it? Why can't things just be funny (or not), and why on earth would you think it "simply encourage[s] people to laugh at crude caricatures of people they don't like'? I don't know ANYONE remotely resembling Bubbles or Daffyd, and if I did I probably *would* laugh at them. Ffs, lighten up.

But having said that, I find Catherine Tate painfully UNfunny. I've watched exactly two skits of one show, and had to turn it off.

"If you think something's funny, it's funny - nuff sed." So you wouldn't object to racist jokes or paedophile jokes? It's true that you can't make something funny to someone by explaining it, but you can understand, to an extent, why people find certain things funny, and what the effects of that are. Weren't you complaining on the other thread about the dangers of comedy punishments for paedophiles? You say, "I also like what I like and laugh at things because they make me laugh, not because poignant-observation-A implies psychosocial-doodah-B" and then go on to say "how many times, on the bus or whatever, have I heard actual real people, teenage girls, who sound almost exactly like Lauren & her mates? Cracks me up, it does." Let "poignant-observation-A" equal "observation of, in peps' experience, of 'real teenage girls" and let "psychosocial-doodah-B" equal "peps doesn't think much of these sort of people" and you've literally contradicted yourself. Here's part of the definition of Satire from the Devils' Dictionary: "Satire, n. an obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humour that we mistake for it, like all humour, being tolerant and sympathetic." I think there's 'nasty' comedy that is still, essentially, making fun of the human condition (even 'The Office' would fall into this category, since David Brent is still only painful to watch if we recognise ourselves in him) and 'nasty' comedy that enables a feeling of smug superiority. Maybe it's because I just can't see myself in the character of chav girls, but any comedy that takes the piss out of them seems to be trying to punch me playfully on the shoulder and say, "Gawd, some people, eh?" ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'So you wouldn't object to racist jokes or paedophile jokes?' If someone finds a racist joke funny, they find it funny whether someone else objects to it or not. "peps doesn't think much of these sort of people" Who said that? You. Do you think comedy writers don't think much of these people? I'd find that hard to explain when Williams has co-written the gay sketches in Little Britain...hmmm wiki entry on the appreciation of satire:- Because satire often combines anger and humour it can be profoundly disturbing - because it is essentially ironic, including that heavy handed form of irony we call sarcasm, it is often misunderstood. Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of poor taste, or that it's "just not funny" for instance), to the idea that the satirist actually does support the ideas, policies, or people he is attacking. For instance at the time many people misunderstood Swift’s purpose – assuming it to be a serious recommendation of cannibalism. Naïve critics of Mark Twain sometimes see Huckleberry Finn, as "racist" and offensive – when of course nothing whatever could be further from the truth - it is one of the most powerful anti-racist works ever written. Some satirists have been known to deliberately use their victim’s incomprehension to enhance the satiric effect. For example, Steven Colbert recently aired a segment on his "Colbert Report" that purported to give Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem an opportunity to trumpet their new feminist radio program. He conducted the interview in a stage-set kitchen, at a pie-making table. Colbert played head chef and ordered the women about, while they played their parts as "sous-chefs." Both women left the set apparently unwounded by Colbert – presumably missing the point of his ironical behaviour. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Wiki editors aren't as sharp as Ambrose Bierce. It's a very poor attempt at a conclusive definition. "Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of poor taste, or that it's "just not funny" for instance)..." This is most likely written by narked off Chris Morris fans (I like Morris myself, but that doesn't enter into it). People who declare it 'just not funny' very often understand very well the intentions of the satire, but do not believe it justifies the approach. For instance, however stupid people were about the Brasseye paedophile special, I'm pretty sure most of them understood that it was taking the piss out of media and public hysteria. What they didn't like was that the target of the satire was they themselves, and that it involved making jokes about an issue they considered deadly serious. I suppose these are the same kind of people who do misunderstand satire though, in that they attach the label of satire to material they feel entirely comfortable with, that mocks people they feel superior to. No genuine satire should leave you feeling entirely at ease and merely amused. "If someone finds a racist joke funny, they find it funny whether someone else objects to it or not." The point is that very often people will find a racist joke funny simply because it's racist. There is a strange compulsion in people to force themselves to side with anything that takes their point of view. Try signing up to any random online community, trolling about for a while, and seeing how many people guffaw whenever the most pitiful attempt at a joke is levelled at you. It's often the same with crap anti-Bush humour. I don't know whether, when people do this, they actually genuinely find it funny, or are just pretending, or a combination, but they simply *wouldn't* laugh if the target were not something they mean to oppose. This kind of humour is very dubious indeed. It's as far away from satire as you can get, and I don't accept a wussy 'oh, it's all subjective' defence. Oh, and David Walliams isn't gay. Matt Lucas is. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'There is a strange compulsion in people to force themselves to side with anything that takes their point of view' Don't we know it ^ 'Wiki editors aren't as sharp as Ambrose Bierce. It's a very poor attempt at a conclusive definition.' Who said it was conclusive? Again, you're appealing to objectivity to define a purely subjective experience, ie: comedy. Comedy is an exaggerated caricature of personality, culture, politics, etc. There's a generally accepted but mostly unspoken consensus that it doesn't really mirror life to the extreme that it conveys. 'The point is that very often people will find a racist joke funny simply because it's racist.' That's because alot of people are racist, Jack. Although, alot of jokes that are deemed to be racist are merely, as mentioned above, exaggerated caricatures of certain personality traits (which do tend to manifest themselves culturally). Again, it's subjective - you have your opinion on good comedy, myself and others have theirs and to argue about it asif you're going to banish comedy you find revulsive from the minds of those who don't is futile. Is it Matt Lucas? I don't follow Little Britain...but the principle remains. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

That IS it - really! ;) Maybe if we'd agreed (for argument's sake) that we didn't find her funny then Jack wouldn't have had a strange compulsion to force himself to side with his own point of view. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Sometimes the sense of gravitas gets in the way of living.

"Whenever someone dissmisses comedy as just nastiness etc. it leaves a bad taste in my mouth." I agree but my emphasis was on the 'just'. There's nothing wrong with nastiness in comedy - most comedy that I like does included some nastiness, a lot of it is much nastier than Little Britain - by my contention with the Little Britain school is that they don't do anything else. "Dissmissing Little Britain is as 'simply encouraging people to laugh at crude caricatures' is meaningless and unfair, almost any great comedy could be dissmissed thus." Well it's not meaningless, it's a description of what they do that you either agree, disagree with or think over-ridden by some other quality they possess. Once again, I wasn't there was saying there's anything wrong with laughing at crude caricatures - that's the starting point of The Office, which I think is great - the problem is that as far as I can see, Little Britain doesn't develop beyond that. "why on earth would you think it "simply encourage[s] people to laugh at crude caricatures of people they don't like'?" Because it's a comedy show, it includes a series of crude caricatures and the people depicted are not sympathetic. Are you arguing that it's not a comedy show, the characters are not caricatures or that many of them are portrayed as being nice people? "David's objection to Tate's characters is, I think, that they appeal to the part of us that wants to make comedy out of people we hate because it's easier to laugh at them than comprehend them. It's observational humour that requires a kind of ignorance to succeed." Well, broadly speaking I see Tate primarily as the provisional wing of the Daily Mail. But I think the Daily Mail is a lot funnier. Tate's 'am I bovvered' character and LB's Vicky Pollard are absolutely foul stereotypes. White working class girls are we're already derided by virtually everybody in the world for smoking, drinking, having babies, wearing jewellery, wearing clothes and talking before Tate and co got stuck into them. They're derided for being content with who they are and derided even more for aspiring to anything better. I think it's similar to Jim Davidson and co's approach to black people in the 1970s. Funnily enough working class young women are somewhat under-represented at the BBC.

I put my tirade poorly I think. My only real problem is that when people object to comedy on moral grounds they tend to wrap their criticisms up in language that implies they think it is not funny, in fact I think they often convince themselves that it can not be funny because it is offensive. Similarly, when people do not find things funny they do not want to be thought of as having no sense of humour and so tend to defend their opinion with moral arguments, that it is not funny because it is wrong. Personally Ithink the two are entirely seperate. Funny is easy, it's what makes people laugh. What is right and wrong is, of course, a far more complex question.

"Who said it was conclusive? Again, you're appealing to objectivity to define a purely subjective experience, ie: comedy." It's *not* an entirely subjective experience, and to claim so is a pitiful defence. Things are not necessarily funny just because some people claim to find them funny. If someone laughs at a funeral, that does not make the funeral funny. People laugh for different reasons, and some forms of 'comedy' exploit the fact that people will laugh to feel good about themselves, or as a method of attack, rather than because there is anything approaching humour in the content. "That's because alot of people are racist, Jack." Yes, Yan, yes. You're getting there. Now, extend the thinking. Racist people laugh at unfunny jokes because they're racist. That was my *example*, to illustrate the point that people will laugh at things that are not funny because they support a point of view or a prejudice that the 'joke' exploits. You *cannot* seriously be trying to defend this by saying that 'comedy is subjective' and that every kind of laughter is equally valid. If you are, then let's see you maintain that philosophical position when someone mercilessly bullies someone you care about. Let's see you say, "It's OK - if they think that joke about my daughter's/wife's/friend's weight/appearance is hilarious, then let them have their fun." ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'Racist people laugh at unfunny jokes because they're racist. ' There you again - 'unfunny' Racist people laugh at racist jokes because they are racist. If my mate tells a racist joke and I object he finds my objection funny and makes a joke about that. This makes for a good example of the 'type' of person who could find a racist joke funny. Personally I like black comedy. Some people enjoy comedy that plays males and females off each other - is that revulsive because it's sexist even if a show may be attended by and enjoyed by both male and female? Again, it's the ability to laugh at oneself also. Off course there are forms of humour that serve to defend a political ideal or ridicule another but it still doesn't mean that it's ultimately 'unfunny' - because-it's-subjective. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Depends on how you perceive the environment, how 'moral' you are. Depends also on how mentally fit you are. Depressives won't find much funny in one world but in another where it's possible to cure despression they may find everything funny - even racist jokes. What ought to be unfunny? I don't think anything is innately unfunny unless there is a preconceived sense of humour, which there isn't. There are also various ways in which a person may contemplate a joke. Let's see an example:- There's a member of an ethnic minority who walks into an off license and approaches the counter. He/she casts their eye over the various bottles behind the counter assistant and says, "excuse me, could you recommend a port?" And the shop assistant replies, "yes! Dover!" Now a racist person would find this funny because they're racist and it's a racist joke. Now I wouldn't find this funny because I'm not racist, but I would be amused at the various ways in which this joke may have originated. I could envisage a guy reading a newspaper and associating the word 'port' with the drink and with Dover and 'Dover' with immigration and putting the two together, formulating the joke and then passing it on. So I'm contemplating the circumstances of origin and finding that vaguely amusing but NOT the ultimate aim of the joke which I would find repulsive. If a joke finds its way into public awareness and is passed on between a large enough group of people then, as a meme, it has been accepted for a purpose and survives. There is a theory that laughter is a way of lessening the burden of flat instinctive drives, a way to release the desired chemicals and provide a temporory sense of security in an otherwise dangerous world. It's only a theory but it has implications as to how some may seek 'funny' situations as a means to an end, despite the mutual acception that it's an immoral joke. An person is aware that a racist joke is considered immoral but it doesn't prevent him from finding the joke amusing...for many reasons perhaps. It's the same as a vegetarian finding a meat eater immoral. It doesn't prevent a meat eater from enjoying eating meat. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

*resists* this morning i vacuumed the hall

lol. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"Off course there are forms of humour that serve to defend a political ideal or ridicule another but it still doesn't mean that it's ultimately 'unfunny' - because-it's-subjective." Nothing is entirely subjective. You need to get that through your skull pronto. Subjective/objective is a dichotomy with limited uses, as almost everything is a combination of both, and the 'everything is subjective' argument is a tired tract as infamously tedious in Internet forum history as comparing your opponent's view to that of Nazis. "Now a racist person would find this funny because they're racist and it's a racist joke." Not necessarily. A racist is, I'm sure, quite capable of appreciating it on the level that you appreciate it. You seem to be arguing that the racist is an exception to a rule because he is a particular 'type' of person. Rubbish. If he can kind a racist joke 'funny' purely because it supports his prejudice, then you and others are quite capable of finding Catherine Tate characters funny for exactly the same reason. "An person is aware that a racist joke is considered immoral but it doesn't prevent him from finding the joke amusing..." There has to be a joke though. A joke is demonstratable. It isn't a private 'experience'. It can be explained. Explaining it won't make the joke funny to someone who doesn't get it, but it is possible to describe the mechanics of a joke, and if you can't, then you need to wonder if you're laughing at something that isn't a joke at all. "Hey fatty," isn't a joke (unless it could be demonstrated to have been used in an ironic context - say, if the addressee is rake-thin) but it can still make a bunch of people laugh. I'd posit that some of Tate's caricatures work along exactly the same lines. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

How do you define innate funniness when you cannot define innate unfunniness? How do you define sadness if you don't have happiness to compare it with? Which came first, the funny joke or the unfunny joke? haha To connect to the previous thread about the 16 year old girl who had a faint electric impulse applied to her lobe and found everything delightfully funny when in normal circumstances, and to everyone present, it was a mudane and neutral environment regards level on the funny meter. A sterile environment you could say. Similar to marijuana...people wake up the next morning and wonder why the hell the cricket match on tv made them cry with laughter. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

'Nothing is entirely subjective' In philosophy, subjectivity refers to the specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experiences. They are unique to the person experiencing them, the qualia that are only available to that person's consciousness. Though certain parts of experience are objective and available to everyone, (such as the wavelength of a specific beam of light), others are only available to the person experiencing them (the quality of the color itself). Jack, your perceptions derive from sensory input. You cannot share your perceptions with any other person so your entire worldview is a subjective experience. We can study the enviroment that we are perceive and are conscious of but only within the limits of our perceptions. Our sensory organs are limited to sensing only a very narrow model of our environment, e.g. Electromagnetic radiation. 'Nothing is entirely subjective' depends whether you have the ability to transcend your senses and see the 'all that is' of humour. 'A racist is, I'm sure, quite capable of appreciating it on the level that you appreciate it' Off course they are. "Hey fatty" would appeal to those people who find fat people funny. There are people who find fat people funny. To them fat people are a joke. There is no objective reality that defines mathematically whether a fat person is funny or not. Personally I'd consider it offensive and perceive that person as a bit of a twat but him and his mates may relish in the situation and deem the whole scenario as suitable comedy. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett