"Liberal" bloggers achieved a swift scientific consensus last night as they familiarized themselves with the People's Cube on this thread at the 'Constitution Club'.

That the consensus was scientific is evident from someone's dropping a scientific word "dissertation," and the tendency to categorize everything in the world, including humor, into "liberal" and "conservative." As we know, the world consists of two types: the ones who split the world into two types, and the ones who don't. At least now we know who's doing it.

I just spent forty-five minutes over at "The People's Cube" trying to find something funny, via that elusive conservative humor, with no luck. Dave put it well, "when you have too much time on your hands".

Now I know how PG feels when I post Sadly, No!. Not that it's going to stop me.
Comment by Andre the Defiant — April 23, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
------------------------
I really have to move forward on my dissertation at some point about why conservative humor isn't funny.
Comment by Wes — April 24, 2008 @ 5:28 am
------------------------
Actually, Jesus did support redestribution [sic] of wealth, as Christianity is supposed to do in general.
Except the sadistic scum that call themselves so now, feel much better beating up homosexuals and then paying 50cent to a church or so.
Comment by V — April 24, 2008 @ 6:34 am
------------------------

They attached a "conservative" label to the Cube and categorized it as "unfunny," grouping it together with bigotry, racism, homophobia, and religious fundamentalism. Observe that nowhere on the Cube will you find arguments in support of those views. I never identified myself as strictly "conservative." I never distanced myself from anybody. It's the "liberals" who distanced themselves from me when they found out that I had a moral backbone.

I have always maintained that humor is funny when it strikes you as true. It's a sudden realization of the truth that rises to the surface inside a bubble of silly laughter. But those who live in a different moral universe, feeding off different versions of the truth, will not be amused if jokes don't strike them as true; nothing will surface.

Remember Gary Cooper in High Noon? (I watched it last night). His character made a moral choice to stand for what's right against the wishes of the "world community." The judge ran away, the pastor washed his hands, the friends stayed home, the pacifist Quaker bride left him, and the saloon was full of corrupt drunks and cowards who cheered for the bandits. And as Gary Cooper stood alone in the deserted street preparing to die for the truth, suppose the saloon crowd would start making jokes about how Cooper talks funny, how uncultured he is, how he's playing a lone cowboy, how he's doing things unilaterally, and how war on the bandits is, in fact, illegal.

Sound familiar? No matter how professionally crafted those jokes might be, they would not strike me as funny and I would not laugh at them because they would be morally offensive. Not only would they miss the truth - they would ultimately be against the truth. Because no matter what arguments the saloon crowd may present for moral relativity, the truth in this situation is only one - and you either strike it or not.

That's why I never laugh at the jokes made by Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Mahr, David Letterman, and the rest of them. They remind me of the offensive saloon cads in High Noon.

By the same token, the "liberals" who laugh at Colbert's jokes won't laugh at mine. But they used to laugh at my jokes when I hung out with them in the Clinton-era New York, where morals were murky and the truth was "unknowable." Everybody was free to choose their own version of the truth from the extensive menu - and nobody could force them to do otherwise. But then one day, against everybody's will, the truth about our place in the world was revealed to us in all its clarity. There was no way to escape what happened on 9/11/2001. The 57 varieties of the truth shrunk to just one choice - and you could either take it or leave it.

Each of us continued to maintain the same set of values as before - and yet we became divided. What divided us was the moral choice we made or didn't make. But not making a choice in that situation was a choice in itself. It put us on different sides of the ideological barricades.

I didn't choose to be a "conservative" - my liberal "friends" chose it for me when they rejected me and I found myself standing next to a bunch of similar "rejects" whom I never met before, but who looked like interesting and intelligent people. They were all very different; what united them was a distinctive moral backbone. I will never let others define myself for me, but if being one of the intelligent people with a moral backbone is "conservative," I'll accept it as an honorable degree.

Conservatives fight evil. Liberals fight global warming.
(I'm not sure who said that, maybe Dennis Prager.)
I am thankful that we have correct-thinking leaders like Red Square to help us see the difference. Red, I am sending you a bucket of carbon credits in graditude.

Actually, Jesus did support redestribution [sic] of wealth, as Christianity is supposed to do in general.
Except the sadistic scum that call themselves so now, feel much better beating up homosexuals and then paying 50cent to a church or so.
Comment by V — April 24, 2008 @ 6:34 am

Ah, so "V" reads the same version of the Bible as Nancy Pelosi. Which version is that, anyway?

I just spent 45 minutes (probably not quite that long) on the Constitution Club site, and didn't find anything constitutional.

RIK

Pinkie, that is from the Gospel according to Marx, not to be confused with Mark.

We have never attempted to be funny, only to spread the Current Truth to all those who will listen and those who won't. We'll whine to anyone out there.

Well, this contributor to the ConClub finds your blog terribly witty. ConClub is a mix of lefty and Conservative Bloggers - yeah you chose the Libs to quote, which is okay since we have both, but it would have been nice to include some of the Conservatives as well.

The Beast (in our comments section):

"The Beast meant liberals can't laugh at themselves in the political arena, but that's normal. It's always funny til your own oxe gets gored."

Agreed - Libs have no sense of humor unless it's directed at others. Thanks for the link and please come back again. Certainly we will return to your fine blog.

"V" is an idiot who showed up today. We are smacking him/her down now.

Commissarka Pinkie wrote:

Actually, Jesus did support redestribution [sic] of wealth, as Christianity is supposed to do in general.
Except the sadistic scum that call themselves so now, feel much better beating up homosexuals and then paying 50cent to a church or so.
Comment by V — April 24, 2008 @ 6:34 am

Ah, so "V" reads the same version of the Bible as Nancy Pelosi. Which version is that, anyway?

Please look again - most of our posts are solid Conservative. Our onlyrules for posting is that you

1. Keep it relatively clean

2. Keep it civil.

We're actually proud of our Liberal Contributors - sometimes they even use their brains!

Rikalonius wrote:I just spent 45 minutes (probably not quite that long) on the Constitution Club site, and didn't find anything constitutional.

RIK

Pinkie, that is from the Gospel according to Marx, not to be confused with Mark.

oops - "Guest" is the Hairy Beast. too How embarrassing...

Well. "V" is no true Progressive, nor are any of the rest of these commenters. Granted, they all employ a decent literary scowl, but not one of those quoted mentioned the "Illegal, Immoral War in Iraq."

Worse, not a single one of them mentioned that Jesus was a vegetarian -- and that we have a moral and religious obligation to Move To A Plant-Based Diet.

Amateurs all!

He also forgot to mention that Jesus was a Black man but don't give him ideas! he's not posting on your site he's posting on ours. We don't need more loons.

Hairy Beast -- who I am sure is a knuckle-dragging Conservative and a man/woman/it suffering from scientific illiteracy-- wrote:We're actually proud of our Liberal Contributors - sometimes they even use their brains!

We executed all of our Liberal Contributors. Weak Liberalism stands in the way of Strong Communism and will not be tolerated here.

We tolerate a few for the purposes of scientific experimentation. Plus they make great eggs benedict.

Not so fast, Hairy Beast. "V" sounds like the man I've been looking for all my life! Oh, I just know he wears a red hat, and that he's sweet and sensitive, and like, totally understands me.

Bring V to me! Bring him to Pinkie! Pinkie wants V!

And tell him to wear his best red shirt.

Commissarka Pinkie wrote:Not so fast, Hairy Beast. "V" sounds like the man I've been looking for all my life! Oh, I just know he wears a red hat, and that he's sweet and sensitive, and like, totally understands me.

Bring V to me! Bring him to Pinkie! Pinkie wants V!

And tell him to wear his best red shirt.

The Beast presents you V!


In his best red shirt.

Hey, I think I know that guy, doesn't he play golf or something? Oh, no, never mind. I was thinking of this guy (must've been the shirt):

OBAMA?!?

He'd never have me. I'm a HO!

Well I had to contribute my 2 rubles there....

I came here due to a summons from our leader at the Peoples Cube to help advance the cause of The Glorious World of Next Tuesday when world socialism will triumph. Then I saw the comments here in regard to Christianity and redistribution of wealth. Naturally we progressives are all in favor of redistribution of wealth. provided of course we get our cut.

However, I do wish to point something out that people who talk of Christianity, wealth, helping the needy etc seem to overlook. In the Old Testament you will find that helping those who were poor was indeed part of the Law. However, and this is the point that liberals seem to miss. A tenth of the land being harvested was left for the poor to harvest. But this is an important point…. the owner of the land was not expected to go harvest the crop themselves and then go find the poor and give them their portion. No, the poor had to go pick from the harvest themselves. Imagine that! It is also true that Jesus told us to help the poor, the sick, the elderly etc. But no where, is there the suggestion that the government, the church, or any other power that be should take this from another citizen to give to another citizen. There was another name he used for such behavior and it wasn't charity, it was theft.

Commissarka Pinkie wrote:OBAMA?!?

He'd never have me. I'm a HO!

A Typical White Oppressor of the People Ho?

KomradeMarine wrote:

Commissarka Pinkie wrote:OBAMA?!?

He'd never have me. I'm a HO!

A Typical White Oppressor of the People Ho?

Great Stalin's Ghost! KomradeMarine, you are liable to put the Kommissarka in palpitations is she sees that! Actually, the way she has been treating this Commissar of late I should worry so much.... yet she is a Comrade Commissarka, and we do share an office still (though I have eyed me a fantastic Dacha/Office to move my operations). If you were not such a new shoveler here I could also point out that she has been fickle in her adorations, but the Current Truth is that she is back in the Empress' camp, so she is a Hillary Operative. I am also a HO of course, as you will be as well.

Welcome to the Collective KomradeMarine. I am sure you know the drill, just follow the guard who will direct you to your blunt training shovel, delouse you of any remnant conservative bugs, and put you on the bus to the Karl Marx Re-Education Center.

Excellent comment Gospodin Pupovich, and replied to this morning. Thanks for dropping by.

Commissar Pupovich wrote:Well I had to contribute my 2 rubles there....

I came here due to a summons from our leader at the Peoples Cube to help advance the cause of The Glorious World of Next Tuesday when world socialism will triumph. Then I saw the comments here in regard to Christianity and redistribution of wealth. Naturally we progressives are all in favor of redistribution of wealth. provided of course we get our cut.

However, I do wish to point something out that people who talk of Christianity, wealth, helping the needy etc seem to overlook. In the Old Testament you will find that helping those who were poor was indeed part of the Law. However, and this is the point that liberals seem to miss. A tenth of the land being harvested was left for the poor to harvest. But this is an important point…. the owner of the land was not expected to go harvest the crop themselves and then go find the poor and give them their portion. No, the poor had to go pick from the harvest themselves. Imagine that! It is also true that Jesus told us to help the poor, the sick, the elderly etc. But no where, is there the suggestion that the government, the church, or any other power that be should take this from another citizen to give to another citizen. There was another name he used for such behavior and it wasn't charity, it was theft.

Commissar Pupovich wrote:but the Current Truth is that she is back in the Empress' camp, so she is a Hillary Operative.

Pupovich, what do you mean, I'm "back"? I never left! I have always been the Empress's faithful HO!
<br>Not once have I allowed my head to be turned by Obama with all his sweet talk about how I, too, can enjoy that elusive thing called Hope, which no one has, but everyone wants, they just don't know it yet. (Who else said that? Oh yes--Pasha Antipov in Doctor Zhivago.) Nor have I gone all weak-kneed and swoony with Obama's stirring oratory promising Change--whatever that is, I don't know, no one knows what it is, except it sounds really, really good--sort of like the product VIP in that old Rock Hudson/Doris Day movie, only better! No, I have resisted the idea that all sorts of good things will start happening to me once I get VIP Hope and Change, and that all I will have, I will owe to magnetism of Obama and his wonderful, marvelous product rhetoric.

The Hairy Beast wrote:Excellent comment Gospodin Pupovich, and replied to this morning. Thanks for dropping by.

Thank you for the nice comments.... and thank Lenin, for a moment I thought the "gospodin" had something to do with "gospel," a banned subject in the People's Utopia unless of course we are referring to the Gospel of Hillary.

Commissarka Pinkie wrote:Pupovich, what do you mean, I'm "back"? I never left! I have always been the Empress's faithful HO!

Where in the Kremlin could I have ever got that idea?

The answer is out there.....

This story was published in Pajamas Media and is being discussed this morning. Anyone can chime in. There seem to be a lot of posts there that claim that the People's Cube is unfunny. May need support.
<br>http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-truth- ... ment-33465

I had to laugh at the comments about there being more than one truth. Did The Current Truth (subject to change without notice) completely go over their heads or what?

There is fodder for an article there somewhere; it just needs someone smarter than me.

Why would anyone want to write a dissertation on why something isn't funny? Unfunny relative to what? The hilarity that bellows forth from quick-witted "humorists" such as Trudeau and Al Franken? Anyway, I assume if the dissertation ever gets written, he can sell the distribution rights to Air America and Barnes & Noble.

Also, what exactly is an "oxe" and how does one gore it?

I don't understand this humor foolishness. There is no humor at The People's Cube. There is no time for such bourgeois fetishes as humor. If we lose our sense of serious, the revolution is lost. I found my father laughing at The People's Cube once. Therapy solved his problem:



Comrade Otis
Doctor of Dictatorship
Karl Marx Treatment Center
"Our friendly staff is standing by for you!"

Comrade Otis. where in the Kremilin did you get the idea that humor is not revolutionary? I was known as quite a jokester myself.

I remember once when my Politburo pals were demanding that the great opera singer Kozlovsky sing some particular song. I told everyone "Why do you pressure Comrade Kozlovsky? Let him sing what he wants! And I think he wants to sing Lensky's aria from Onegin!" Everyone cracked up and of course that is what he wanted to sing!

Then there was the time I appointed Isakov Naval Commissar. He felt that was to arduous because he only had one leg.. I told him "since the Navy had been commanded by people without heads, one leg's no handicap!"

Ha ha ha! I kill me! And my friends!

Laugh Comrade Otis! Laugh!

Thanks you all for the support. And welcome, Comrade Krotchsky, to the big collective. Report to Commissar Pupovich for orientation.

Wait, hasn't Pupovich been purged? Must check the Current Truth section.

He was purged?

Wait... who is Pupovich? Never heard of him!

(Just playing it safe....)

Commissar Pupovich wrote: However, and this is the point that liberals seem to miss.

"Point"...."Liberals"......"miss"? In the same sentence? Commissar this is outrageous!

OFF: Good stuff there, Pup. The leftover gleaning from the harvest by (private) property owners represents one of the best welfare system models a society can have, when taken in context.

Down here, progs only find something funny if it involves ridicule of "conservatives", or a comically presented death or injury of a human being (other than them).

Besides that, there's no humour in the Left that we know of.

Red Square wrote:Thanks you all for the support. And welcome, Comrade Krotchsky, to the big collective. Report to Commissar Pupovich for orientation.

Wait, hasn't Pupovich been purged? Must check the Current Truth section.

Comrade, my wise and expensive counsel, the Chairman, informed my the People's Revolutionary Council has dropped the charges. I only hope my action has helped breathe revolutionary fire into the Party and served as an example to new party candidates. However, if further trial by fire is needed, I will gladly submit, For the Party™!

Many thanks for the kind words Comrade Beelzebob. As you can see in my statement, I did not mean to criticize our glorious leftists, I was merely trying to inform them of some decidedly non-progressive values contained in the so called "Holy Bible" that our neo-con mass murdering, misery inflicting, earth destroying enemies use to try and refute the logical and entirely correct progressive movement. To be forewarned is to be forearmed da?

More proof that the People's Cube is not funny found at this Obama-gazing forum dedicated to and moderated by Dan Simmons, a celebrated sci-fi author and winner of the prestigious Beet of the Week Award.

For some reason this site reminds me of Sgt. Hauk from GOOD MORNING VIETNAM. You know, Bruno Kirby's character, the one who was convinced he was hilarious but was thoroughly impossible to even listen to, let alone laugh at, except for how pathetically inept he was at comedy?

In other words, a really, really, embarrassingly bad site.

Jeezus. I don't think The Onion is losing sleep over this site.

See, for satire to be truly effective, it has to be a) funny, and b) perfectly willing to bite any hand that tries to feed it. This place is neither. It is a toothless lapdog performing cute little tricks, and it's as amusing as a warm pile on the newly-cleaned carpet.

Tonight calls for a celebration of the end of a long-ass primary battle, and beginning of what it sure to be an exciting general election.

Congratulations, Mr. Obama.

<br>Their entry page to the Cube was the KG3 collection.

Red Square wrote:More proof that the People's Cube is not funny found at this Obama-gazing forum dedicated to and moderated by Dan Simmons, a celebrated sci-fi author and winner of the prestigious Beet of the Week Award.

I couldn't get the link to work, but you provided enough excerpts to give the general picture. I don't think he's worthy of Beet of the Week. However, give me the appropriate clip art and I'll be more than happy to administer something along the lines of "A**hole of the Week Award" and make him the first recipient. I can already see a backlog piling up (ahem).

The link leads to a dummy page, but if you refresh it you'll get to a forum (I know). The comments were made by different people, who apparently are Dan's students and followers.

OK, I have it now (too lazy today). Well! Talk about your toothless lapdogs! The ones on that forum might even be neutered.

And in defining satire, Craig omitted the one key ingredient that pings right back to what you originally wrote--the truth.

Yes, Craig believes that for satire to be truly effective, I have to be perfectly willing to sell the bullets to those who want to shoot my family. In his mind, to be a satirist, one must have no principles, no allegiances, no ideology, and no beliefs. Meaning, be incapable of making a point. Meaning, good satire is pointless satire. Just foam at the mouth at the world in general (see Luis Black) and bite indiscriminately all hands that are reaching out to you lest Craig thinks you're a lapdog and a sellout. And blame Bush.

In fact, Craig's quote should read "for satire to be truly effective, it has to be a) funny, b) perfectly willing to bite any hand that tries to feed it, and c) blame Bush.

See? Satire is what Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Al Franken, and Bill Maher do. If it doesn't sound like something Bill Maher might say, then it's really, really, embarrassingly bad satire. Because to be a good satirist, you must be a non-conformist like everybody else.

So I guess Craig's criteria for good satire should have 4 items:

a) haha
b) bite the hand that feeds you
c) blame Bush (it's almost the same as item b but funnier)
d) be a non-conformist like everybody else

All I ask Dear Leader is do you wish for us soldiers to advance on that front? Actually, hoping you say no....I rarely see much point in posting in such, but willing to bite the bullet if called upon.

BTW Dear Leader, I came home a bit early from my normal duties today because my leg was hurting so bad all day (perhaps due to the Chairman's poorly aimed shot?), and was overjoyed to find my We Put the U in Gulag shirt awaiting me! But there is one disappointment that you may wish to know of. I chose an orange shirt, and whether intentional or not, the "People's Cube" is barely visible. All the other lettering shows up clearly in black, but the sites name is some sort of golden perhaps color, that really doesn't stand out against the orange background.

In the lead I forgot to write about this basic rule of humor:

If you are making fun of someone's stupidity, the least likely person to laugh would be the one who happens to be stupid. First of all, he won't know what the joke is about. Second, even if someone explains the joke to him, he won't understand the premise because in his mind he didn't do anything wrong. His friends, if they don't notice his stupidity either, will also be puzzled by your joke's apparent "lack" of premise.

Let's reverse the situation. If you are doing something right, and someone is too stupid to understand what it is that you're doing and why, he may start laughing at you. Even though your actions may eventually benefit him, or save his butt, he's too stupid to understand it and so he points a finger at you and invites other stupid people to laugh with him. Naturally you won't be laughing because those jokes will be insulting to your intelligence and moral values.

So this is why the "progressives" don't find our jokes funny. And this is why I hardly ever laugh at jokes made by liberal comedians.

You may say that I just set myself up for a bitch slap because the statement above can also be reversed.

Not really. In the alternative universe of moral relativism that doesn't have any set values - perhaps. But in this world, where sky is up and earth is down, where ice freezes and fire burns, right is always right and wrong is always wrong. Our values are set to an absolute standard and cannot be reversed. Those stupid enough to reverse them, do it to their own detriment. And because most things in this world are connected, they do it to our detriment as well. That is why it is important not to let stupidity run wild.

And this is exactly why we continue to make fun of the self-destructive stupidity of "progressivism."