This is mostly a counter-example to the “poop joke” under discussion. Intentionally unfunny and dumb. An anti-joke if you will. The point in common: difference of viewpoint. And that can be interpreted (or not) any way you choose.
Bottom line: debating what’s funny is akin to debating what’s pretty. Same for any other issues under scrutiny. YMMV.
Damn close to whatever point is in play. We had dozens of these “pointless jokes” where the loser was the one who even smiled.
No, that was Sir Winston Churchill.
Not to me. I thought it was funny.
And screw Hamas. They’re a bunch of evil terrorists.
The distracting weirdness of the imaginary microchip product just makes it sort of goofy.
Who is Hamas? Hamas leadership? Anyone who voted for Hamas? People who kinda-sorta stand behind Hamas, even though they don’t like everything about it? People who are represented by Hamas, even though they didn’t vote for the party?
WC Fields’s joke would have been different if he was calling her ugly because her nose was broken because he’d been beating her for years.
If the target of the joke were just Hamas, I’d be cool with it. But the joke is that Palestinians are brutish savages, and that takes the joke into a different territory.
Asking the people of The Straight Dope Message Board if a joke is offensive or morally reprehensible.
Now that’s funny!
Of course it’s offensive; that’s the entire point. And mildly funny.
It’s only inappropriate if you have a stick up your ass.
It would be funny if told about Napoleon and Wellington.
Well, as long you don’t use the computer chip. That would be dump.
I believe this specific idea is known as “punching down.” For some, this element of a joke disqualifies it from funnyland no matter the merits of the rest of the construction. I think that’s just bullshit. Some folks can easily separate humor from reality, some can’t. It’s ok to laugh at the OP joke, it doesn’t mean you think Hamas or those they govern are shit-slinging sand monkeys. It just means you appreciate a good ‘burn’ joke. And if anyone knows a few good burn jokes, it would be the Israelis, amirite?
Daniel Tosh could make it funny on those grounds.
It is offensive - and is intended to be. It is also utterly, utterly unfunny. Made moreso by the previously mentioned fact that Israel’s gift has no basis in reality and thus it lacks even the “zing” that would be provided by an actual relevant/real/reasonable return. It really is the equivalent to “and that man was Albert Einstein.”
Again, Winston Churchill, not WC Fields.
Since when did jokes have to be based on reality? Much of the humor of jokes comes from implausible situations. For example, elephant jokes. (They were funny when I was a kid. :))
Yeah, that’s why I said it’d be different.
I get the funny of the joke; it’s mildly amusing (although the over-the-top microchip description detracts from the humor). But it achieves its humor by reinforcing a racist stereotype, and sure, I have a stick up my ass about that.
I find it more offensive that people would find this joke offensive.
They don’t have to be, but in this case, the description of the amazing technological thing reads as if written by an buffoon with no grasp of technology, and this distracts attention away from (whatever the hell is) the point of the joke, ruining it. IMO.
Q: What do you do if a Hamas militant throws a hand grenade at you?
A: Pull the pin and throw it back.
Q: What do you do if a Hamas militant throws a pin at you?
A: Step back, he’s holding a live hand grenade.
(shamelessly stolen from Newfie jokes)
… and I heard them as Polish jokes and I believe they are used in military training about female recruits now. They’re offensive, and, as a pair, very funny.
But I would only tell them about a group I belonged to.