One thing that might help here is to realize that there’s a difference between “the first thing someone thinks,” and “the first thing someone posts.” I’d be very surprised if there were anyone on this board whose first thought on reading the article wasn’t, “Holy shit, that’s awful.” Not everyone feels it necessary to share that thought, because, again, pointing out that killing babies is awful isn’t exactly a stunning revelation. After a little deliberation, perhaps they see an angle on the story that, despite still being awful, is also a little weird or even humorous. So they post about that, instead of another “Me too!” post about how bad it is to kill babies. That doesn’t mean it’s their first thought, it’s just the first thought they had that they thought might be remotely interesting to anyone else.
Because anyone who can’t figure out the above has got to be some kind of a moron, and be judged by morons is annoying.
Well, no, it’s really not like that at all. There is, for starters, a particular culture to this board which generally places a higher value on irreverence than solemnity, in part derived from the tone of the newspaper column that originally spawned this place. On top of that, the topic was broached in the Pit, which is the area of the board set aside for especially contentious discussions. Lastly, it was confined to a thread whose title made it fairly explicit what sort of discussion was going to be happening inside. So, rather than shouting in the middle of a shopping mall, it’s a bit more like going to the mall, finding a slightly disreputable bar nearby, going into the smokey back room of that bar, and then getting shocked - shocked, I tell you! - by what’s going on back there.
There was more to say about this story than just ‘that’s terrible.’
I can definitely understand people laughing about that man who killed people dressed as Santa. It’s difficult not to see the comedy in that. (But I bet the threads about it on here were a mixture of jokes and serious response, not jokes only allowed). But you guys made jokes based purely on white make-up (all it needs to be a clown is white make-up, apparently), and the fact that it was in Belgium. Bit of a stretch, surely?
Anyone can make off-colour jokes about serious matters - they can do it as much as they like - and anyone can challenge them for doing so. You do seem to be saying that the jokers should go unchallenged. Joking is not the only appropriate response, you know.
Yep, anyone who disagrees with you must be a moron. The correct response to someone challenging what you said is to call them a moron. That’s big and clever.
The thread title was obvious to people who were in on the joke. I wasn’t (having not read every thread before I signed up), so it wasn’t obvious to me. The BBQ pit is for contentious topics, yes, but that doesn’t mean none of those topics are taken seriously, does it? Loads of the threads here are serious in intent.
So it’s still like shouting in the middle of a public mall, just that you expect everyone within hearing to get the joke that you started off with, despite the fact that not everyone has had the exact same conversations as you. When they don’t get the joke, that’s their fault.
No one has said that serious responses aren’t allowed. And, in fact, several people have made serious responses in this thread, and no one has attacked them. The only issue is idiots like yourself, who don’t understand the concept of dark humor, having a vapor attack because there are people in this thread who aren’t rending their garments and smearing themselves with ash over this attack.
Where have I said that joking was the only appropriate response?
No, not anyone who disagrees with me. Just you. Because the basis for your disagreements is so exquisitely stupid, you see.
Again, where have I said that no one is allowed to be serious?
Yeah, sometimes people don’t get a joke. That happens, and it’s not a big deal. The part where you’re an idiot is where it’s been explained to you four or five times what the joke is, and you’re still crying about how you “can’t understand how anyone can joke about this.”
I got jumped all over after my first post (and you can’t seriously look at that post and think it was extreme). Once the in-joke was explained, after that post, I could understand the thread more, yes. All the same, seeing the funny side of a serious situation is one thing - treating it as entirely a matter for jokes, like the thread starter and many others did, is another. There doesn’t seem much point in going over this again and again, though.
You don’t understand why someone would want to discuss a story that shocked them and be further shocked to see it treated so lightly, and I don’t understand where people found the humour in this particular story, or why they object to people being challenged. We’ll both think each other’s an idiot, at least for the few seconds total that we bother thinking about each other at all. Meh.
No, you didn’t. There were precisely two posts that directly addressed your first post here. They were, in their entirety:
and
Only one of them is even mildly aggressive, and that’s likely because you started off by calling all the posts joking about the subject “pathetic.” I’d say that calling your own post “whining” in retaliation is fair play.
No, I understand that perfectly fine. What I don’t understand is why you’ve spent so much time bitching about the discussion being had here, and none at all actually trying to have the discussion you wanted. If you can explain that one to me, I’d be much obliged.