Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I mean I know tribal instinct is a very strong part of human psyche, there's no denying that. But maybe we should at least strive to make it less so instead of feeding it?

We're civilised, we try to move away from primal instincts, for example, violent aggression. Maybe tribalism should be next on the list?

It's not really about tribalism though is it, its about respect and recognition of yourself in others and finding self-depreciating humour in situations and scenarios.

That cannot happen if the person doing the "humour" is not part of that experience. Instead it becomes something else, an attack or assault on fellow human beings for the sake of trying to have a laugh at their expense.

It's not about race or tribalism, it's about a shared experience. It's why new comics frequently introduce themselves and their backgrounds so that even if you do not share their background you can laugh "with" them about scenarios that might be outside of your lived experience.

It can also be about highlighting sources of negative stereotypes.

For instance, Scotland has a significant drug problem. A Scottish comedian can work that into a joke - criticising their nation’s flaws. Whereas a non-Scot is likely to make “Scotland are has the smackheads” the entirety of the “joke”. Same with the reputation for being heavy drinkers and a bit fighty. They can also skewer odd sources of pride.

It’s kind of a variation on speaking truth to power. A reflection on issues real or perceived. Those can be rich veins of comedy, either defending or attacking those issues, or simply exploring them depending on where the comedian finds the comedy.

And yes. Those absolutely can be in-jokes, intended solely for the National/Cultural audience the comedian belongs to.

It needn’t be justified to anyone else. I have of course once again stuck to my own frame of reference.

Now I enjoy comedy. And there have been times when I watched say, a Latino Comedian telling Latino jokes, and it’s gone entirely over my head. That’s….fine. There’s no requirement for anyone to talk me through why it got the audience in hysterics when I was left baffled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scrabb wrote:
@Mad doc,

I don't like it when posters treat response time higher than their personal baseline as something negative.

Also, you have had the time to correct your post with the simple factual inaccuracy since it was pointed out by someone in general agreement with the gist of your posts and have either decided not to or are simply not paying attention to the thread.

Fair point on the origin of the term woke. Consider me better informed now.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
It's worth pointing out that humour punches *up* and bullying punches *down*.

If you're having "banter" with someone who has no power to object (such as call centre staff, waiters, etc), and they don't laugh, then it's not actually banter.

So, i can't be made fun off because i am part of a minority that has been disadvantaged on religious basis?

Context is very important. If someone can make a joke about your minority religion and you genuinely find it funny, then that's all good.

I'm just saying that it's very hard for a majority group to make a joke about a minority group that's actually comedy and not bullying. I've seen a few examples of the years of genuinely funny cases but it's usually something like a play on words and involving some pretty heavy background awareness. I can't even think of any examples here.

I'm using the power imbalance example above to try and illustrate that there are many situations where a person can make a joke in poor taste and not be called on it and therefor think that it's acceptable. Of course, with wokism, people are more likely to highlight the disapproval they've been scared to historically.

I guess you could flip it and say that if you'd walk up to a group of random minority categories in a bar and make the joke to them confident that you won't get beaten up, then it may be genuinely funny.

Despite there actually being quite a few reasons why you should be able too and despite humor being a tool for criticism that is the least insulting and most likely to provoke some thought ?

Do you have any examples?

Humour is often used for criticism but as I said, that only works when punching up. Like when I make jokes about how incompetent our Government is, that's punching up. If I make a joke about how incompetent French* people are, that's bullying.


*I'm using France as an example as our nearest national neighbor. I like the French. Mostly.

Fun fact? On a good day, I can walk five or so minutes from my crypt and see France. It’s oddly humbling.

I am a bit concerned, like genuinely concerned, that folk don’t seem to understand that humour isn’t only subjective, but often quite highly contextual.

I think the universal translation is what in the right moment in the right conversation is Genuinely Witty if not outright Hilarious, taken out of that context is just…..not funny. A literal “you had to be there” issue. Except when it comes to criticism of one’s own culture or cultural background, perhaps it’s more “you have to be from there”

The context can also be to a specific time.

Examples for me would be The Young Ones and The Goodies. Both were punching upwards and skewering egos in their own way. And both had moments satirising Racism. Now for their time? Both shows were avant garde and absolutely punching upwards. But viewed without that historical context? Yeah there just racist to the casual viewer.

One particular scene is the racist policeman from The Young Ones. I won’t run through it here, but maybe you can find it on YouTube. If you can’t, the punchline is the Policeman removing his sunglasses and saying “sorry John, thought you was a”. And yes it includes the word I’ve not.

Herzlos wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
It's worth pointing out that humour punches *up* and bullying punches *down*.

If you're having "banter" with someone who has no power to object (such as call centre staff, waiters, etc), and they don't laugh, then it's not actually banter.

So, i can't be made fun off because i am part of a minority that has been disadvantaged on religious basis?

Context is very important. If someone can make a joke about your minority religion and you genuinely find it funny, then that's all good.

I'm just saying that it's very hard for a majority group to make a joke about a minority group that's actually comedy and not bullying. I've seen a few examples of the years of genuinely funny cases but it's usually something like a play on words and involving some pretty heavy background awareness. I can't even think of any examples here.

well pretty much my first comment highlighted context alas.

Also satire, but then again satire profits from being accurate assessments that will hurt on some degree if it is actually good satire. The key being that one still can laugh, or atleast see the punchline. Same with stereotypes.

I'm using the power imbalance example above to try and illustrate that there are many situations where a person can make a joke in poor taste and not be called on it and therefor think that it's acceptable. Of course, with wokism, people are more likely to highlight the disapproval they've been scared to historically.

I guess you could flip it and say that if you'd walk up to a group of random minority categories in a bar and make the joke to them confident that you won't get beaten up, then it may be genuinely funny.

If you get beaten up for a joke then i say A you didn't tell a joke or B people can't take a joke anymore. I've seen both. Regardless violence is not justifyable by provocation, atleast not over here.

Despite there actually being quite a few reasons why you should be able too and despite humor being a tool for criticism that is the least insulting and most likely to provoke some thought ?

Do you have any examples?

Humour is often used for criticism but as I said, that only works when punching up. Like when I make jokes about how incompetent our Government is, that's punching up. If I make a joke about how incompetent French* people are, that's bullying.


*I'm using France as an example as our nearest national neighbor. I like the French. Mostly.

Well, for one there's a pretty funny joke about catholic "Schrankdienst" but that one is prolific in general in german afaik. Pretty common aswell, serves as a nice criticism against a catholicism and certain things. Considering that it is a minority religion here AND has been partially organised by the communities due to some legal wierdnesses that would qualify as targeted enough for the locals to be "bullying" if used here, very likely to provoke laughter though or atleast a grin. And for certain that is an institutional system that requires some.

There is also the stereotypical portrayal "de puur" literally "the peasant" which is also targetting technically rural folks often catholic, which typically serves in humour as some kind of ironic straight man and at the same time parody of the people from there. Normally equipped with pretty thick accents occasionally showing up in duos often being confronted with other swiss or foreigners, slowish mannerisms and a healthy dose ironic wit aswell as doing something stupid or commenting to slow that someone else is doing something stupid. Not inherently critical, mostly in context but it is a nice reflection that one shouldn't take himself to serious.

Then there are Canton specific jokes, mine is literally jokingly refered to as stonage and other swiss supposedly delivering developmental aid or flat out being limmited in vocabulary to NO because we only seem to write that down on ballots. Which tbf is true, my kanton votes No the most out of all so yeah, there is more than one argument on certain things to not just vote no, that one is selfexplenatory.

 Orlanth wrote:
Sorry for the blunt message. This is tough love for decent people overtaken by 2+2=5.

No, it's a load of complaining from someone who is used to seeing certain groups have to deal with 2+2=3, or even less than that, while they benefited from 2+2=4.

Now that society is broadly rebalancing to try to get 2+2=4 for everyone if at all possible, the group that used to get 4 see the groups that got 3 getting more than they used to, and believes that those groups are now getting 5 instead - and at the cost of some of their 4.

That group is blatantly wrong, and definitely blinkered, and needs a reality check.

I’m not entirely persuaded tribalism is the problem.

Yes, taken to extremes it can cause division and strife. But….so does anything taken to extremes.

Consider nationalism. My nationality is of course a significant part of me as a person. But it’s never defined me, except in the eyes of others (as we saw earlier in this thread). I don’t think being Scottish makes me better than the next person, just as I don’t think it makes me lesser than the next person.

But it is absolutely part of what makes me, me. And I’m part of other tribes too.

My taste in music, Media, hobbies are all part of who I am. Yet like my nationality, none of it particularly defines or limits me. It does inform me in some ways, just as it informs others. All part of being human.

It begins to get problematic when one decides it makes you superior to others, or that others are inherently inferior. It gets really bad when you fixate on both. I could go on but we’re already sailing close to the wind on the No Politics rule.

Tribalism helps us bond with other humans, and create societies within societies. Yes it can be used to create division - but it takes someone working hard to do that, and usually lying through their teeth, and relying on a form of stolen valour (my Grandad fought in X, therefore I are the grate etc). Of course, another part of the “only really a problem is when it’s taken to extremes” is one person’s moderate is the next person’s extreme. Lazy, sensationalist journalism tends to do the rest.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Well, for one there's a pretty funny joke about catholic "Schrankdienst" but that one is prolific in general in german afaik. Pretty common aswell, serves as a nice criticism against a catholicism and certain things. Considering that it is a minority religion here AND has been partially organised by the communities due to some legal wierdnesses that would qualify as targeted enough for the locals to be "bullying" if used here, very likely to provoke laughter though or atleast a grin. And for certain that is an institutional system that requires some.

There is also the stereotypical portrayal "de puur" literally "the peasant" which is also targetting technically rural folks often catholic, which typically serves in humour as some kind of ironic straight man and at the same time parody of the people from there. Normally equipped with pretty thick accents occasionally showing up in duos often being confronted with other swiss or foreigners, slowish mannerisms and a healthy dose ironic wit aswell as doing something stupid or commenting to slow that someone else is doing something stupid. Not inherently critical, mostly in context but it is a nice reflection that one shouldn't take himself to serious.

Then there are Canton specific jokes, mine is literally jokingly refered to as stonage and other swiss supposedly delivering developmental aid or flat out being limmited in vocabulary to NO because we only seem to write that down on ballots. Which tbf is true, my kanton votes No the most out of all so yeah, there is more than one argument on certain things to not just vote no, that one is selfexplenatory.

To be honest though sound more like bullying than comedy. It may still be funny to those that aren't impacted it it, but that was the same with any other brand of comedy throughout history.

The Catholic as an oppressed minority is an odd one though; one on hand they are the richest and largely still the most powerful religious group in the world, but they have been persecuted elsewhere (like in Northern Ireland and England)

Americans who know their history will have knowledge of the pervasive anti Catholic bias that existed throughout much of our own history.

The KKK was staunchly against Catholics and it wasnt just extreme groups like that. The common libel of "split loyalties" (papal vs national) had remarkable staying power and was leveraged even against JFK in his presidential run.

The wealth of the Vatican or global reach of Catholicism meant little in a nation that prided itself on its Protestant character for it's first century and a half.

Herzlos wrote:

The Catholic as an oppressed minority is an odd one though; one on hand they are the richest and largely still the most powerful religious group in the world, but they have been persecuted elsewhere (like in Northern Ireland and England)

It's less an odd one and more the norm tbh. There are very few affiliations or characteristics of individuals/classifications where the benefits/challenges aren't contextual.

 Scrabb wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

The Catholic as an oppressed minority is an odd one though; one on hand they are the richest and largely still the most powerful religious group in the world, but they have been persecuted elsewhere (like in Northern Ireland and England)

It's less an odd one and more the norm tbh. There are very few affiliations or characteristics of individuals/classifications where the benefits/challenges aren't contextual.

I suspect Americans have a different perspective on it than Europeans. Catholics faced more difficulty in predominantly Protestant America than in Europe which many of the stereotypes commonly ascribed to Jews and Muslims being typical of biased attitude about Catholics as little as a half-century ago. It's only recently started to fade away in the past 2-3 generations of the US.

For sure for sure. He plainly laid out the differing contexts for us in his post.

I'm saying it's more normal for a demographic to simultaneously have neighborhoods where it is advantageous to belong to it and neighborhoods where it is not than for a single statement about their level of oppression to be accurate universally.

Herzlos wrote:


To be honest though sound more like bullying than comedy. It may still be funny to those that aren't impacted it it, but that was the same with any other brand of comedy throughout history.

Intent is diffrent. And intent is contextualy visible. Also at some point if i were to get insulted by any of the above i'd not stop being insulted 24/7 and i frankly got other things to do. For exemple laugh at these jokes because they are funny and by extention fire some back off my own.
Take the first exemple, sure the joke is pretty mean spirited, but it's a joke with a degree of accuracy. Now compare that to the non joke form which would basically go the papist route or even meaner things etc etc. Guess which message will get you an debate and actually lead to criticism being taken into consideration and which will lead to hostility.

The Catholic as an oppressed minority is an odd one though; one on hand they are the richest and largely still the most powerful religious group in the world, but they have been persecuted elsewhere (like in Northern Ireland and England)

You are forgetting a significant fact. We were part of the HRE. You know the same "state" that had the dress rehearsal for the total war doctrine because some silly priest decided to hammer some thesises on a church door? You know the one state in which political-ideological doctrine and indoctrination in conjunction with political aims dictated a war that raged on for some 30+ years and which brought a mental mortgage that would lead on and be a hallmark of all inheritor states of the HRE like switzerland in which political coalitions formed around K-K Katholisch-Konservativ (catholic-conservative) vs P-L (protestant-Liberal). In which the constant conflict between potential unifiers, seperatists, etc went on culminated in differing ideas and by extention aims for ethnicities, elites and states?

The german empire f.e., after it's unification under protestant prussia didn't take long to attack catholics, or jews for that matter. But especially not other ethnicities, which when you compare to ideas like "greater germany" in the 1848/49 revolts and their ideas of who is even a "german" only 21-22 years earlier (basically everything and anything vaguely german culturally influenced is good enough to be and gets an invitation to draft a constitution) and that whole debate yeah, catholic was just not "german" enough for prussian-protestant germany , (well enough for the catholic habsburgs but alas we got prussian germany instead and yes this is a reference about we got x at home whilest x is objectivly worse) but it was also of course but a happy accident that the poles were also not protestant. Relgion and culture are tied extremely close to this day for some ethnicities and that makes them very easily targetable and in these cases elites are interdependant and when you are competing with such an elite why not targeting both with one stone by targeting them by an very easy marker of their identity?

Same reason here, catholics were targeted because they were mainly conservatives and against the new liberal dominated state or at the very least highly sceptical, you can't target us for speaking another language or being an other ethnicity (because have you looked at a map of faiths and languages in switzerland, let me tell you it's thankfully an overlapping intertwining mess because that severly limits discrimination possibilities) but you could target us and our elites for being catholic and surpressing or forcibly reform our institutions.