What Kind of Posts Should Go in "Politics"

[Bootstrap]

Seems some people's sense of humor is different.

Always. For example, when someone makes a dirty joke, I don’t find it funny. A joke about my mother or my wife that’s unkind won’t strike me as funny either.

We usually laugh when humor resonates with something we believe is true, or when it pokes fun at things we’re comfortable questioning. But when humor undercuts values like respect, dignity, kindness, compassion, or moral integrity, it’s harder to laugh. Jokes told just for shock value, or ones that tear people down, usually fall flat.

What’s interesting about political jokes is that in this forum, people aren’t allowed to say exactly what they find offensive. To explain the reaction, they’d have to move over to the Politics forum — which means the joke can be made here, but the discussion it provokes is not allowed here. And there's a reason I don't join the Politics forum ...

The forum remedies for this are effective, 1) start a new topic, 2) bunny trails.
It happens to all of us, why would jokes be different?

I don’t think jokes should be treated differently—that’s my point. The challenge is that I can’t raise concerns about a joke without it looking like I’m bringing politics into it. Sometimes it seems acceptable to joke about serious matters, but not to name the serious reality behind the joke.

For example, it wasn’t Ken’s joke that caught my attention. What struck me was the one about deporting people to foreign prisons without trials, in response to this:

Maybe the administration could just put him on a jet to somewhere else, apparently they can do that without those uncooperative courts.

That kind of humor feels like it touches on something quite cruel. And when someone objects, the “come on, it’s only a joke” response can create an “in group” that finds it funny, and an “out group” who are told they “don’t have a sense of humor.” That dynamic is what I find troubling.

[Robert]

Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.

[Robert]

Instead of demanding others stop, one can kindly state they felt a post was a little too political. That becomes an I statement instead of a demand.

[Bootstrap]

Instead of demanding others stop, one can kindly state they felt a post was a little too political. That becomes an I statement instead of a demand.

I don’t think I made any demands of anyone. What I was trying to do was name how I saw the conversation unfolding. And how I experienced it.

As I saw it:

• Ken didn’t intend his post to be political, but people immediately picked up on the more serious political themes.
• Some tried to steer things toward lighter ground with puns, but the underlying themes were still there.
• Barnhart’s joke had serious content in it, you suggested keeping it light, but then also shared a video that leaned into a serious theme in the same post.
• I joined in with a satire. That was the first thing anyone actually objected to, and I’m still not sure how it was different from what came before.

My point is simply this: if someone posts a political joke on a subject where people have strong feelings, it’s natural that others might notice or comment on those themes. If the joke is permitted, then a light response to the serious content should also be permitted. Ideally, that can all happen without us escalating into “full-blown politics mode,” or drawing hard in-group/out-group lines.

If I'm doing something wrong here, I really don't know what it is.

[Robert]

My point is simply this: if someone posts a political joke on a subject where people have strong feelings, it’s natural that others might notice or comment on those themes. If the joke is permitted, then a light response to the serious content should also be permitted. Ideally, that can all happen without us escalating into “full-blown politics mode,” or drawing hard in-group/out-group lines.

How is that not already happening? I have seen this play out here several times.

[Bootstrap]

My point is simply this: if someone posts a political joke on a subject where people have strong feelings, it’s natural that others might notice or comment on those themes. If the joke is permitted, then a light response to the serious content should also be permitted. Ideally, that can all happen without us escalating into “full-blown politics mode,” or drawing hard in-group/out-group lines.

How is that not already happening? I have seen this play out here several times.

I thought that's what I saw happening too.

But someone objected to one of my posts, I thought it was in keeping with what was going on as described above. I guess these things are subjective.

[Robert]

My point is simply this: if someone posts a political joke on a subject where people have strong feelings, it’s natural that others might notice or comment on those themes. If the joke is permitted, then a light response to the serious content should also be permitted. Ideally, that can all happen without us escalating into “full-blown politics mode,” or drawing hard in-group/out-group lines.

How is that not already happening? I have seen this play out here several times.

I thought that's what I saw happening too.

But someone objected to one of my posts, I thought it was in keeping with what was going on as described above. I guess these things are subjective.

I am totally confused about all this. I think we are agreeing, but am really confused. Someone can have an opinion that something another posts is too edgy or out of place. It just makes it their opinion. One can respond or ignore it as they choose. I was challenged by one of my posts in the Mennolight section. I choose to explain it elsewhere. That person had an opinion. I shared my opinion. We all moved on.

[JohnL]

Would it be better to make Mennolight section opt in too?

Seems some people's sense of humor is different.

We could have a political humor section you opt in to.

Also a non-political humor section you can opt in to, but first you must affirm you have a sense of humor and aren’t easily offended.

Then we’d have to have an entire thread (feud?) over what constitutes humor. It would dehydrate all the fun out of the forum if dry humor were prohibited and turn it into a humorless desert.

[Bootstrap]

Then we’d have to have an entire thread (feud?) over what constitutes humor. It would dehydrate all the fun out of the forum if dry humor were prohibited and turn it into a humorless desert.

Isn't dry humor already dehydrated?

What is wet humor, anyway?

[Bootstrap]

How is that not already happening? I have seen this play out here several times.

I thought that's what I saw happening too.

But someone objected to one of my posts, I thought it was in keeping with what was going on as described above. I guess these things are subjective.

I am totally confused about all this. I think we are agreeing, but am really confused. Someone can have an opinion that something another posts is too edgy or out of place. It just makes it their opinion. One can respond or ignore it as they choose.

Ken thought one of my posts was out of place. Someone moved it to Bunny Trails. Ken also started this thread to discuss it. I think that's the basic history. Like you, I'm also really confused by some of this.

So far, I think this is my takeaway:

My point is simply this: if someone posts a political joke on a subject where people have strong feelings, it’s natural that others might notice or comment on those themes. If the joke is permitted, then a light response to the serious content should also be permitted. Ideally, that can all happen without us escalating into “full-blown politics mode,” or drawing hard in-group/out-group lines.

I generally do respond when someone challenges something I said. That's gone around a few times.

I was challenged by one of my posts in the Mennolight section. I choose to explain it elsewhere. That person had an opinion. I shared my opinion. We all moved on.

As long as I keep responding, we don't seem to move on. Maybe it's time to do that.