Humor vs Conditioning - Humor is objective

[@Harry_von_Karma]

Bark, bark. Time for lard.

[@apocalypseofplush]

The fact that it actually made me laugh when it was on screen upsets me. Congratulations.

[@FlamesofJustice2]

I understand why FBI made you Manfred von karma

[@hauntedstereo367]

I hate that it tickles me

[@cleophoebe6385]

Meow meow, time for mouse!

[@theoverpreparerlamenters3r436]

I am thoroughly confused. Is this eluding to the fact that you can feed as many people as you have eaten?

[@gabrielsalahi3656]

“I’m half-French because I’m too short to be a whole one” Bowl didn’t have a lot of insults but damn this one hit

[@NickZGames]

It's not about how many guns you have. It's all about what you fire from those guns.

[@ryanbrimson8238]

I don’t get it could you explain?

[@mappeurnational8034]

@@ryanbrimson8238 It's because Faux Cares is a midget (according to Bowl, at least), and since he is French, Bowl dissed him hard with that insult

[@ryanbrimson8238]

@@mappeurnational8034 ahh I see thanks

[@Anonymous-hx3pu]

@@mappeurnational8034 dissed him? He fuckin roasted his ass to ash

[@thephantom9589]

The whole point of the Phineas & Ferb nickel joke is that it subverts the expectation of the listener, because usually the punchline is that you'd be rich, so naturally the spectator istinctively thinks (despite the fact that, technically, it's obvious that the mentioned event is uncommon): "Wait, wasn't the usual punchline the fact that you'd have lots of money?", which is why it is necessary to clarify the point of the inital affirmation. Of course, if you think about that for a minute, you realize that it was extremely clear that the event could only have happened a few times, but you don't come to that realisation IMMEDIATELY while the joke is being said, which is why the actual punchline surprises the audience and makes them laugh (until everybody starts using it a million times making it very unoriginal)

[@littlemoth4956]

Damn I wrote a whole ass essay and only found this after 😔

[@nathanevans1382]

@@littlemoth4956 If I had a nickel for everytime someone made an essay explaining the nickel joke from Phineas and Ferb, I'd have two nickels... which isn't a lot, but it's weird it happened twice. I feel like this is another way this joke can be considered as humour, it's funny in context, I'm using the joke within it's own joke.

[@griin6]

just like the chicken crossing the road joke

[@WhooshWh0sh]

@@griin6 *WEED EATER*

[@hydrofalls8154]

I actually had another reason. It's sounded to me something like "that's weird." Like the same ultra specific circumstances happened twice. Like it wouldn't work if you said something trivial (depending on the context of course.) Like you can't say this joke while talking about people not understanding your point in ultra specific way. It is wierd but we are on the internet. It would work best if you saw a giant wheel roll down the road by your window. Random absurdity. This is why I think joke is subjective. Depending on the context the joke might work or not.

[@Shuriport]

To be honest, the absolute absurdity that is harry of all people, the sophisticated ruthless dictator that he is saying deez nuts joe mama made me laugh and i feel ashamed. Thank you

[@cooldude2794]

I see Amogus in your pfp help

[@Shuriport]

@@cooldude2794 you are a fucking menace to society

[@irisblink]

@@cooldude2794 FUCKK I SEE IT NOW GOD FUCKING DAMMIT

[@diavolosteddy7594]

i was already laughing at knock knock whos there deez nuts 💀💀💀

[@diavolosteddy7594]

@@cooldude2794 FUCK

[@SteelandSouls]

I never really took the "two nickels" joke as explaining the joke. I thought the humor was in his realization that it was odd. People often sort of talk themselves into a kind of realization where an idiom may apply here but not really but it still should. But that's just my take on it.

[@SteelandSouls]

On another note, when it comes to "conditioned" jokes like Deez Nuts or 69. I think the humour isn't necessarily in the joke but the amusement of the game being played. If I say "69" and you say "nice", it's not that we are particularly getting fun out if it being a joke since it isn't really one to begin with. It's a social interaction game that we play with each other and we fine amusement when someone plays along. I suppose you could say it's a lot like Peek-a-Boo in that sense. There's nothing inherently funny about it - probably not even from the baby's perspective, but the child still finds it amusing because it is a bond and a connection being formed by the rules of that game.

[@justcallmekai1554]

Yeah idioms are really strange when you take a second to think about them beyond what people *mean* to say rather than the actual words themselves. Like saying "Meteoric Rise" or "Head over Heels". How does the phrase relate to the meaning? Meteoric Rise sounds strange's cause meteors tend to fall downwards but ppl mean the opposite unironically. Its strange and amusing to think about.

[@Hip.Username]

@@SteelandSouls but then instead of being a joke, it turns into a slice of life moment and it's been watered down because of the verbal explanation. it would be funnier to end the joke at "two nickels" then immediately move the conversation along while the audiences takes a second to process it, or hell even have a pause for the dumb ones idk. btw peek-a-boo to a baby starts out as confusing and scary until they discover object permanence, then that shit is hilarious because they're in on the trick of you disappearing. laughing over having a basic understanding of an interaction is something humans do on a instinctual level, and is based on improving social bonds that were crucial to survival for our early ancestors. so you could say that people who laugh at "deez nuts" and "69- nice" are basic af and have an under-developed sense of humor, but you should be kind to them because they're just trying to survive

[@gavinwilson5324]

@@Hip.Username Perhaps you missed OP's point. He suggested that the joke WASN'T the twist on a common phrase, but the character's realization of the oddity. The original delivery of "If I had a nickel for every time I've been doomed by a sock puppet, I'd have TWO NICKELS!" is very confident and enthusiastic. Then, the delivery of "Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice" is more confused and unsure. The punchline isn't "I'd have two nickels," it's the character realizing how strange the thing he just said was. Kinda like when you catch yourself in the middle of saying something dumb. You can make it more funny by deliberately drawing attention to it afterwards.

[@Hip.Username]

@@gavinwilson5324 it would have been funnier of he had followed up with a confused look after, or a "wait-" then moved on to let the audience get the joke for themselves. Saying all of that outloud is overexplaining

[@uctungle6773]

I'm dying from laughter watching the frenchman and englishman insult each other.

[@lucasmisael7507]

Debate in balkans be like

[@kaw57_]

​@@lucasmisael7507 lmao it's so funny because it's wrong

[@lucasmisael7507]

@@kaw57_ im comparing With the balkans

[@grillbottoms]

@@lucasmisael7507 in the balkans, we hate each other on national basis

[@luketheunlucky7632]

@@kaw57_ But he's right*

[@glockroach5731]

I love how Bowl alternates between 1st and 3rd person, it just adds to his absurdity.

[@kratosdad1760]

Seriously

[@raykirushiroyshi2752]

I really liked the point about music. I don't care about dancing music since I don't go to party and the only way I listen to music is through my headphones,only for myself. That explains why I can't find music to like among the popular ones and just stuck with game music and vocaloid/covers of vocaloid songs,where the composer's make music to listen to not simply to get drunk and dance at a party while it's playing

[@haven_lady675]

Some people use those types of music to exercise.

[@emitrex]

I think this is why I can’t listen to some music when I feel a type of way

[@deathshop2172]

you should listen to will wood. literally some of the best music I have ever heard, amazing lyrics, and perfect beat. the antithesis of modern pop, and it is so so much the better for it.

[@CraftIP]

I love this approach to music and I also relate to this on a spiritual level because holy shit are you right about music. Listening to something made as a form of art and not to sell things/set generic moods at parties is MUCH better and more* fulfilling than listening to the latter. Thank you for showing me that some people with my approach at musical taste exist.

[@SpectralSaikhanbayar]

Ever since I realised it quite a while ago, I’ve noticed that this really is the case: a lot of the popular songs I attach to only interest me because of a positive association, like a cool dance i saw, or a person, place, book, etc. Though, personally, part of my attachment to songs I don’t *really* like is probably my neurodivergency. I’ll hear a mediocre song once, and suddenly I’ve listened to it exclusively for 3 days in a row because it scratched an itch I didn’t know I had until then. Afterwards, I will likely not listen to the song again because it is no longer satisfying, and it is not good enough to listen to in spite of my tiredness with it. The way I can tell if I actually liked a song is if I’m still willing to listen to it even after playing it non-stop for a week straight. Even though I’m someone who loves dancing, dancing music isn’t always my favourite stuff, especially since I do like several different types of music, including stuff that would be really hard to do anything but interpretive dance to (and I don’t have fun with interpretive dance for the most part). I mean, according to Spotify, my biggest categories of songs I’ve liked are OSTs and J-Pop, with at least half of the latter being Vocaloid songs.

[@meymeyman3127]

humor may not be subjective, but i will NEVER blame an idiot for being stupid, some may not have access to the tools, or some peoples upbringing might make them the way they are, so i NEVER think that a person being a dickhead is the fault of nature, but the fault of nurture. (havent watched the whole video just getting a tad annoyed at the anti-human ideology)

[@meymeyman3127]

edit because i cant edit it without losing the heart and ive still not watched it all: FUCKING YES GOOOOO CYPHER

[@oliverparis3361]

If someone is stupid, then they almost certainly refuse to change, that's like saying that it's ok to go around murdering people if they were brought up somewhere where murder was acceptable and/or encouraged, surely at some point they would question if what they were doing was right.

[@darky5780]

@@oliverparis3361 Do you question if eating pork is right? Of course you don't, you were born in a time and place where eating pork is acceptable and encouraged. Even if it pretty obvious that not everybody thinks that in the world. You don't question stuff you take as "granted" unless it was challenged, and even then you are going to resist to that challenge because.. well, can't this other person understand that you are right? Your argument/example it's weak at best and irrelevant at worst, people who are dumb will keep being dumb until that notion is challenged signicantly by either someone smarter or by becoming smarter themselves. Nevermind that the argument of OP still stands, it's not their fault for being dumb, they just became that way because of their enviroment.

[@oliverparis3361]

@@darky5780 you're mostly correct, however this is why I said almost certainly, the point that they bring up is _extremely_ situational because, unless they live in a highly censored and isolated state, where people barely talk (if ever.), they will, again, almost certainly, encounter someone with points that effectively counter their own and either learn or refuse to change.

[@nathanevans1382]

@@oliverparis3361 what if how they're brought up has made them "learn" to refuse to change? I 100% believe the main reason idiots exist in this world is because of indoctrination, a lot of people form their beliefs based on their parents beliefs, and with strong enough conditioning, a parent can cause his child to not question his parents and believe EXACTLY what they believe and, more importantly, not change that belief under any circumstance, even if it's not even a belief and just straight up wrong. Idiots might encounter other people with different viewpoints and make the decision to learn or refuse to change, but a lot of them don't really think the option to learn exists because of how they've been raised.

[@adamweinberg2532]

A note on the whole please in different languages section: Please as a request doesn't come from "please me", but is rather a simplification of the more formal expression "if you please", which is basically the same as French's sil-vous-plait.

[@Hip.Username]

i was looking for this comment, i don't understand how it has very few likes

[@adamweinberg2532]

@@Hip.Username People just don't appreciate linguistics like they used to...

[@Rrheyz]

Cannot agree more, i understand the skepticism but it's just too much.

[@Clemehl]

Yeah, but the simplification happened anyway. Even if "if you please" was initially used to ease an order to be better received, the expression was effective. So effective that the expression was a trend, could be shorten up to people losing track of the original meaning. After all, you have to remind people where the expression came from, because many people didn't know. "Please" ends up as a magic-word that you use without thinking, corroborating exactly their point. If they were aware of the origin, FC would probably used it as an example to demonstrate how a trend ends up as a habit. Saying "please" as a habit for politeness. Or "deez nuts" as a habit for humor. Probably. I guess? I don't know. I am neither that knowledgeable nor familiar with them.

[@mucicafrajer]

EXACTLY

[@jinxhijinx1768]

You need to show off more of bowl. It's not like his ego could get any larger.

[@ssjcrafter8842]

but even compared to infinity there are other, bigger infinities.

[@captaintsubasa7430]

Larger than FC?

[@MattlikestrainsOfficial]

@@captaintsubasa7430 larger than Joe mama

[@theperfectspecimen2697]

I feel like the thumbnail is a bad example "Among us deez nuts" is clearly hilarious.

[@frenchbaguetteintelligence]

The thumbnail is mocking them, so yes. It was inevitably going to be funnier.

[@thatoneperson3990]

Indubitably

[@Megalodon_Megumer]

@@frenchbaguetteintelligence amogus

[@axain7784]

@@Megalodon_Megumer *_Ah, shit. Here we go again._*

[@toonyandfriends1915]

@@frenchbaguetteintelligence i was laughing because he didn't give a fuck about when you said that amogus is unfunny ,simply replying with ''joe mama'' : in the thumbnail, they are mocking you.

[@gavinwilson5324]

Actually, Cypher was 100% correct about repetition. The only difference between how "Bark, bark. Time for lard" was used and how Shrek and "deez nuts" are used is the medium of repetition. The former was repeated within your conversation. The latter are repeated within the public consciousness. This meta-repetition is the basis of meme culture and its brand of humor. The reason memes fall out of fashion and "die" is because people forget what the repetition calls back to, rendering them nothing more than trends propagated ad nauseum. Memes don't die because they were never humorous, they die because everyone forgot why they were humorous. But there will always be people who remember. THAT is why "deez nuts" lives on. But everyone else just sees simpletons clinging onto an old trend, conflating trends with humor. To be fair, such simpletons do exist, but the critics of dead memes are just as guilty of conflating the two. Although, it's worth noting that getting tired of a meme is different, as it is entirely possible to do so while still understanding the basis of the humor. But when we perceive an old meme as nothing but mindless regurgitation of something meaningless, it's just a matter of not getting the joke. So yeah, "deez nuts," "joe mama," "amogus," and all the like are indeed humorous.

[@crouton7070]

YES. The reason I stick to among us isn't because it's a dead trend, it's because the prospect of insanity by memes and among us is so appealing and humorous.

[@hamsterdam1942]

The original "amogus" joke (that one heavily edited 4-panel comic on r/stonetossingjuice) didn't have any comprehensive meaning. "amogus" was never humorous to begin with. Unless you can manage to explain how it's humorous

[@terrakage4462]

Huh, never thought about it like that. I agree with everything you said.

[@kirbsmeister608]

@@hamsterdam1942 I believe its because amoungus has started to blend in with the other memes from amoungus causing a sort of meme singularity within its self. The whole "sus" thing, the "amongus", and the many objects that look like the game characters and then people spamming the comments with "amongus". The best example I can think of is "Loss" the original comic was intended to be this extreme twist of a comic that was ridiculous, but it's so formulaic that people were able to use in in many ways. Using simple shapes to form the comic in vague ways. When the meme has been broken apart and scattered into different memes, yet while still being part of the original joke, it creates a conceptual idea that they have the same amount of funny. There being the original "amoungus" that isn't all that funny but the distorted "sussy amoungus" that is "funny" yet the internet cannot tell the two apart because they've interweaved with each other and different memes. Sorry for the essay

[@crouton7070]

@@hamsterdam1942 Idk what you're talking about, don't know any comic, but it's just the idea of the internet and meme culture driving people to borderline mental instability that I personally get behind as a joke

[@johnseymore4774]

Humor has rules but some people will just never get the joke. Like me. NOBODY GETS ME, IT'S NOT A PHASE, MOM

[@Salted_Rice223]

Same lol, I just don't get some jokes either, mostly it's with the subject but sometimes it's the format it's represented in. Even if I am a "gen z" or a "zoomer" I still enjoy "older" types of humor like real comedians who are paid to tell jokes on stage, and even some cartoons are nice to watch every now and then though I am a little older than the usual age of people who watch most cartoons. A lot of the time I still don't get memes and I also agree with the opening statement, the joke doesn't need to be explained further unless it adds to the humour of it. I don't know why I made this but at least it made me think a bit

[@blacktaylore4]

33:23 what makes this even more humorous is that he picked Godot for Cypher's character, who technically has three eyes on his visor

[@memethemastermonarch9459]

This is honestly Harry's strongest case yet. I mean it doesn't top the vegan video in terms on humor, but having Harry put so much energy and strong debating skills to work is an incredible sight to behold.

[@BlindBosnian]

Have you seen the overpopulation video?

[@Eliza-hb1nc]

@@BlindBosnian or the eagle parenting debate?

[@borb4794]

I'll be writting this while Faux and Bowl cat fight The whole point that the joke "if i had a penny for each "x" thing that happened, i'd have two. Which isnt a lot, but is wierd it happened twice" is that it's redundant, you (hopefully) already know that x thing was rare, but the fact that someone had to explain it (and the fact that someone is known for being somewhat intelligent) makes it funny. Badfics unironically do that from time to time, which, toghether with it's inherent absurdism and gramatical errors galore make them funny to read.

[@ffreeze9924]

there's also the fact that it is a subversion of a common phrase "if I had a nickel for every time [x] happened, I'd have a million dollars/I could do [expensive thing]." Arguably, without the explanation in the phineas and ferb version, the line would fit almost perfectly within the original format and no longer be a subversion of it. The explanation both adds humor through the futility and redundancy of its existence, but also by making the joke a further subversion of expectations than it already was.

[@baconous689]

This makes me want to watch Seibmoz's "Hitman: The Hitting" series again

[@CaptainCFalcon]

Actually, it's a nickel. It's kind of important to say "a nickel" instead of "a penny" because a nickel is inherently more valuable than a penny. And as people usually use "if I had a penny for everytime..." The penny is to accentuate the fact that it's *_such_* a common occurrence, you'd make a sizable amount of money even with the bare minimum. So as the value of the currency in question increases, so too does the audience's expectations of that value. So the punchline is the fact that, while obviously the absurdity of that situation *_shouldn't_* be common, the usage of "if I had a ___ for everytime..." (Ironically enough,) *_conditions_* them into expecting a far higher value than JUST 2 nickels. However, it doesn't JUST end there. The character that specifically said this line was Dr. Doofenshmirtz. This is important, because by the point that this joke is used, most viewers should be quite familiar with his utterly absurd backstories as a child. So once again, the viewer is *_conditioned_* into assuming that, regardless of the scenario, it surely must be rather commonplace for someone with such utterly abysmal luck in life. So, once again, the fact that it's ONLY happened twice to even Doofenshmirtz is rather unexpected, & humorous as a result of this fake-out.

[@thermophile1695]

FC: "Come up with new insults, Bowl." Bowl: *Plays the barbie dollhouse card*

[@Suo_kongque]

In German, this is why when asking a request and not an order, we leave out the please, Oder „bitte“ auf deutsch, since it then sounds more like an order than the simple request. However, when giving an order, it can make the order more polite, such as asking a waiter for a glass of water. You took the extra time to make your request polite, and so it makes them happier. It’s common decency because of this.

[@haven_lady675]

Humor can be culturally different. My American humor is far different from British or German. However I don't find some of my country's humor funny. But I'm a sucker for puns.

[@Suo_kongque]

@@haven_lady675 I was more talking about the point FC made about please being an order in and of itself, and how it was similar in Spanish, so I was contributing with my knowledge of that subject in a language I happen to speak pretty well. I do agree with you though, the way humor is structured can be different for separate cultures, but the fact of the matter is that that is still objective. Puns are a certain structure. You may have heard of Schadenfreude, a largely unanticipated delight in the suffering of another, which is rationalized as trivial or appropriate. You might be a sadist and actually just enjoy their pain, but I find the circumstances to be amusing a lot of the times when it comes to this type of humor. There are different ways to enjoy the same humor, but humor has a structure, and it can be identified as such.

[@miuboy4578]

I'm sorry, but aren't you confusing order and request? Or is that on purpose? I honestly can't tell.

[@Suo_kongque]

@@miuboy4578 it’s because of the way bitte is used in German. The word “bitte” makes it an order.

[@jamesyeager483]

9:19 I unironically laughed at this... We truly live in a society

[@cardboardking577]

Same

[@Toberumono]

Bowl MVP again. I haven’t watched past the short joke. But the timing. The setup. The sheer PERFECTION of that glorious turnaround. That is ART. All hail Van Bowl! Edit: the “two nickels” joke isn’t actually where Faux thinks it is. The humor is in twisting a phrase originally designed to discuss something that has happened a large number of times into one that happens few times but is very weird. Without the seemingly redundant explanation the joke fails because you’re just misusing the phrase. Aka, the humor is in the second part of the statement rather than the opening. Edit 2: again, all hail Van Bowl! He might not have many jokes, but he is a master in applying the same thing in an array of contexts, thereby recontextualizing it! Edit 3: Cypher making a perfectly good argument in the worst possible way strikes again! The reason why people find things like “deez nuts” and its ilk funny is simple: it’s the flagrant violation of a cultural taboo. The shock of a simple statement suddenly being attached to a taboo is humorous through its clash with expectations. It’s the same underlying philosophy behind the jokes Bowl used in the Dark Humor video, just a bit less extreme. Yep. Harry immediately makes it better while attempting to counter: yes, *Harry* saying, “Bark, bark. Time for lard.” would, indeed, be humorous due to the clash in expectations. However, somebody random saying it without any context is *not*.

[@lukedeakin7124]

And Phineas and Ferb made a whole episode joking about that same turn of phrase, they had a clip episode where they looked back at things and everytime it was preceded by "if I had a nickel for everytime X, I'd be rich" followed by a series of clips with a counter for how much money there'd be

[@weirdokate8840]

@@lukedeakin7124 this is a very similar story to "How the turn tables" which was originally brought up by the office - now it's just a lil funny phrase on it's own.

[@MM126.90]

1:37 Ironically P&F actually has some very clever writing and never talks down to it audience. It’s one of the few modern shows that isn’t just random=funny.

[@ErwanPYT]

This apology video has truly enlightened me about my wrongdoings. I hereby offer my most sincere apologies to you, Faux Cares.

[@poyobotyahoo7494]

These silly videos are honestly enlightening and thought provoking. The sheer amount of passion and dedication shines through the editing of the music, characters, and dialog. That is an objective statement. And each new video is a food for thought. Also I see a theme in your last few vids. The theme of conditioning. How ideas love, violence and "jokes" are conditioned to us by media and pop culture. And we follow sometimes even blindly, those ideas without really understanding why we do so. That causes me to theorize on maybe how our lack of attention span due to constant state of rapid consumption of highly connected, brief yet busy media has weakened our ability to reflect on he how and why of our beliefs and ideas. Also I love as the video goes on Cypher's excuses on why does he argue with you and harry: that you are on your high horses. Falls apart the more you use facts and logic eventually revealing Cypher's own insecurities and pretensiousness. Truly spectacular.

[@joshc5051]

Here for my weekly dose of intellectual enlightenment

[@heyhey97777]

I feel like this is going to be an interesting video just from the title and the first minute. I love your content

[@charlestetreault739]

As a music student (emphasis on student, I'm no authority), I'd like to point out that a reliance on rhythm over melody can still create well thought-out music (not to imply that there was any argument suggesting that music is only in melody), I'll point to jazz, which regularly employs rhythmic variation with little regard for a melodic line, but it doesn't make the music monotonous. What can be monotonous, however, is music that uses few, maybe even just one, rhythm/melody. This is common in much modern music; it is a successful formula that you do indeed hear in a lot of dance parties. Such music can still be interesting thanks to lyrics, though, which is why some tunes using few/single rhythms and melodies, even after they fall out of popularity, are still enjoyed. It's also interesting that the decrease in average attention spans applies to music as well. The full lengths of 18th century symphonies were almost always over 30 minutes, and not uncommon for them to last an hour. In this Era, songs are often single movement and rarely over 10 minutes. I'll concede, I often don't have the patience to listen to a full tune, modern song or classical piece, and will instead listen to fragments of multiple tunes, which in retrospect is such an un-gratifying experience. Separate tangent, there is objectively more complex music as well as humor. That doesn't make simple music and humor bad. I guess you could make the argument that everything is subjective, but I think it's safe to say that most of us can operate under the assumption that we share the same reality, and thus there are objective things we can witness. You can enjoy objectively simple things, even the structure-less statement that is "Deez Nutz." That does not make someone stupid or inferior, and if one's response to the argument that something they enjoy or find funny is simple is a defensive response, you may have an issue with taking things too personally. Alright, I'm done with describing my train of thought. Thanks for the videos FC, I can say with confidence that they are mentally stimulating in a good way.

[@Monunga]

Harry was in top form with that response at 17:30. Most brutal deconstruction of people who roll with Cypher's modus operandi I've seen.

[@ananaskoira7225]

Music made it epic

[@dumass804]

I'm not sure how being conditioned to find something funny or laugh at it makes it automatically mean that it's not humor. The definition of humour is to be amusing. The definition of amusing is to provide entertainment or laughter. So even if you're conditioned to find something funny or even just to laugh at it, it's still classified as humour, just not in a traditional sense. Humor doesn't necessarily have to make logical sense or have a reason for being funny - even though most of the time it does in the context of the situation - as long as it's amusing or entertaining, it's still humour. But if you want to make a case that having a reason for finding something funny is an argument for objectivity then fair enough - I would agree with that

[@dumass804]

@@niffthesniff8258 I address the points as they come up and edit my comment afterwards when watching these videos so I don't lose my train of thought. I don't blame you for assuming otherwise though I could do it in a notepad or something but I'm lazy, so sue me.

[@offandsphere6788]

pretty sure the definition of humor drifted from "something funny that has a reason for being funny" to "it's funny because it gets laughs and people genuinely can't say it isn't amusing"

[@dumass804]

@@offandsphere6788 whether or not it drifted or stayed the same is largely irrelevant to this argument. Meanings of many words have changed over periods of time. Using old definitions just means you're unable to form common ground when having a discussion where the axioms are based around those terms

[@davidmays8974]

So it depends on how you define humour.

[@dumass804]

@@davidmays8974 nearly all debates depend on how you define the base terms from which the arguments will stem. Which is why I think it's helpful and productive to use dictionary definitions (most of the time) because they aren't biased to either side by their very nature

[@helio3928]

amogus isn't subjective, it's universal

[@sandromaspindzelashvili5767]

If amogus is universal is sussy baka, sus and when the imposter is sus also the same?

[@cooldude2794]

@@sandromaspindzelashvili5767 yes you sussy impostor baka

[@sonetagu1337]

"Baka" means dummy, by the way.

[@natalienatz1903]

sus

[@beaub152]

sus

[@ulyssesmendez3194]

Humor is whatever the laugh track indicates as humorous 😀

[@jeremyhearne]

It's 2:22 am, I should be asleep. But watching Harry and Faux Cares style on Cypher is too good for me to sleep

[@TheoTungsten]

Two things that might strengthen Harry’s arguments about conditioning, trends and humor 1.The conditioning and repetition of memes can be observed clearly via prequel meles and their quotes. Nobody laughs at “What about the droid attack on the wookies” because it’s clever, ironic (Palpatine voice) or anything in fact. People laugh at them because they have been conditioned to laugh at them. That’s not to say that all prequel memes are not humor, but a lot of them aren’t. 2. Conditioning stops being funny after the trend is over. There’s a reason why people still laugh at George Carlin’s stand up 14 years after his death, but nobody laughs at “Damn Daniel” when you see shoes, because that trend is long over.

[@EndermanPierce]

as someone who is fairly new to this channel and has the worst species of humor birthed by mankind, i am having an existential crisis - i didn’t even plan to watch the entire video, but it was so intriguing that i did anyways. i have never seen such deep conversation in an argument that actually becomes a real debate and makes really good points like these ones. i’ve been so used to hearing terms like “L”, “Ratio”, “Mid”, “Fatherless behavior”, ect. i completely forgot real arguments like these existed. in fact, i clicked this video out of instinct because i saw amogus because haha amogus funny, but i never thought i would reflect on what actually makes it funny, and what point i was trying to make with the joke. really good point with the trends though, i can definitely see “sus” and “amogus” being unfunny, and for some reason i let that play into the joke of insanity. i like the point of being conditioned to jokes too, and that doesn’t mean i haven’t fallen victim to that trend either. i apologize for the long, unorganized essay of my cluelessness but i had to put my thoughts somewhere! (is it bad i started laughing for absolutely no reason when the random laugh tracks were thrown in around the end)

[@Rrheyz]

It's probably just you laughing at yourself, those things are normal. Acknowledging yourself in itself is quite impressive

[@Rrheyz]

Because lotsa people couldn't do that. As an example in this video cypher. He cannot admit himself being a pretentious asshole do he has to call other "pretentious asshole"

[@ellieofthebeast7952]

I'd argue the comedy of the original "two nickels" joke comes from the delivery and who it's delivered by. Doof is established as the type of character who would either explain an obvious joke or his thought process behind saying something that failed to make much sense. The joke itself is alright, but the nail comes from Doof explaining it in a weird "trying to be relatable" way. However, this gets lost when people the joke out of this context. I still get a laugh out of how ridiculous the thing that happened twice is, but rarely at the joke explanation, unless I read it in my head as Doof. It's a joke with an added punchline built for a specific character, and taking it out of context removes the fact that the explanation itself is a joke.

[@DIRTkat_ofc]

Someone: **breathes** FC: Let me list everything you're doing wrong

[@leirbag1595]

This is honestly the first time I am on Harry and FC's side 100%. Sometimes, things can be amusing without being humorous, and liking a Deez Nuts joke doesn't make you any lesser just because of the nature of the thing that made you laugh. Just have fun, and go on knowing better than you did yesterday.

[@corrinthechocolatine4025]

Quite the contrary for me. Their stand on "objective humor" is bad imo, because their only criteria rely on a subjective thing (the intent of the joke author), and so everything turn into into a judgment of attention. That makes them quite pretentious indeed, cause that mean that every joke they don't understand can be dismissed as "not humorous", all the while they can't be sure of the author intent.

[@ProfessionalismTrash]

@@corrinthechocolatine4025 the intent of a joke is to be funny. and if not, then it's unfunny. so what the fuck are you talking about

[@Marcelelias11]

This is funny, because this is the first time I'm against Harry and FC. Yes, they convinced me that humor is objective, not subjective, but i still think that "Deez nuts", "Amogus" and Shrek are humor. Well, kind of. Hitchcock once said that no horror you show on screen will be as terrifying as the one the viewer makes up in their mind (I'm paraphrasing, I can't be fucked to look up the exact quote). Same thing goes for humor: it's not that "Deez nuts", "Amogus", and Shrek are funny by themselves, it's just that, by randomly dropping these, the listener/reader/receiver is the one that makes up the reference to what made these things funny in the first place in their own heads, and THAT is what makes then laugh. I'd say it's actually quite clever, even if neither the listener nor the creator of the "joke" have the faintest idea of what I've said.

[@davidc.]

Except they are wrong here.

[@3F34N1M4T3S]

3:45 WHY IS THIS SO RELATABLE? People write very short "funny" messages and even if they may read like a hundred of those absolute garbage of a joke messages they cant be bothered to take a second or two reading something that has an ever so slight bit of logic in it. On top of that they have the audacity to actually try calling out anyone who if at all decides to be a little bit thoughtful with their words. The fact that on top of all that they cherry pick parts of what you wrote that hurt their precious little ego and try to argue against it without any understanding of the context of the entire message in itself whatsoever is very frustrating at times. I am so glad that this was addressed along with alot more goofy things others do in other videos. This channel is probably one of if not the most relatable one I've ever seen. You sir have my admiration.

[@thermophile1695]

My thoughts: 1) I think you misunderstand what makes the 'two nickels' meme funny. It's for the same reason an extended gag is funny; at first, the absurdity just feels stupid, but past a certain threshold, it reaches a level where it becomes amusing. In the two nickels joke, if x is sufficiently long, it reaches this point of amusing absurdity, and recounting the joke at the end continues to push it further into that humorous range. I don't blame anyone for not finding it funny, but there is an actual mechanic behind why people find it funny. 2) Deeze nuts is actually funny (not saying it randomly, the actual joke). Person A tricks person B into saying "CDs", to which person A responds "See deez nuts!"'; Person A thinks they just 'pranked' person B, but they only made themselves look like an idiot, which is funny, because seeing stupid people do things that make them look stupid is funny. There are plenty of memes that put unique takes on this style of joke (look up 'Steve Jobs died of Ligma' for a good example), and this makes it funny. Hence, repeating deez nuts is exactly the same as garnering amusement over the existence of Shrek; it became a popularized and funny joke which then became its own phenomenon that requires no additional support from making actual jokes. 3) I don't think these phenomenons are bad, really. Callbacks are a thing for a reason; when there's a joke that everyone involved gets, calling back to it brings back memories of the original joke or series of jokes which is true for both Shrek and Deez Nuts. Now, Harry would probably go on a tangent about living in the past, but that's a personal statement, not an objective criticism of its humor. Of course, there are some people who carry on the trend without actually getting the joke, but they do this for the same reason people laugh at jokes they don't get; this doesn't mean the joke has no humor whatsoever, it just means that person doesn't have the context for that joke to be funny.

[@MinosPrime...]

This is perfect for making context on how humour works. Let’s say my friend is playing a game and says “i’m loving it,” i then sing the mcdonalds theme that plays on an ad when the advertiser says “i’m loving it” or the text “i’m loving it” appears on screen, my friend then laughs because it has a similarity to it, and thus, being funny.

[@YuuNCO]

People often get offended when they are corrected because they are embarrassed. (I won’t further develop this point) Which is why when someone corrects you, you will think that they are arrogant. (I mean, 90 percent of the time they are). But some people just seek to save you from error. Errare humanum est, sed perserverare diabolicum!

[@BananaTrooper3650]

From I got from this video and the comment section, there are three things I think make a joke good: 1) If the joke is not expected. A joke can lose it's power if used too much, like how everyone spams a certain meme and it just loses it's humor, cause that's a joke you would expect. Now a good joke is one that you don't expect, something that people don't spam so much, so it doesn't feel so dry and boring. It also has context that makes it funny. It does connect with the second thing that makes a joke good, and that is: 2) When the joke is timed right. For the joke to have full impact, it has to have good timing. More specifically, making a joke at the the right place and at the right time. It's also why you shouldn't repeat the joke too many times. Jokes need context to work and repeating the joke so many times isn't good cause it doesn't always work. 3) Making the joke different. Jokes can still be funny even when people expect them, if you the change the joke a little. (I'm pretty sure the video mentioned it but I don't know where though) The main purpose is to subvert expectations. Now subverting expectations isn't always good. But with good delivery you can a joke funny while keeping the audience entertained. 5) Delivery Now this is very important to making a joke work. This is related to everything I stated above so keep that in mind. The way characters deliver a joke can mean a lot and make a big impact on it's humour. It's especially neccecary to shows or games that rely on constant new jokes as it's main style of humor. 6) Set up The set up and delivery go hand in hand with each other. The set up is basically the context the joke. It's doesn't need to be a long set up that takes a while to make, it can be a short line or action to make the joke work. Now let's take everything I stated so far and analyse an example of a joke: Fat guy: Hey old man! Soup! Now! Old man: OH HO HO, it's been awhile since I shot a costumer in the face! Open wide fella. Now this joke seems random without the context. So let's show the context/set up: Fat guy: Needs soup to attack people. Old man: Give soup using a shotgun. Situation: Fat guy is fighting a police woman and a ratman. Now we know the set up behind the delivery so the joke makes sense. It's also timed properly so you know the joke was delivered. And yeah that's it. I didn't mean to make this comment so long, and I don't think people would see this comment. But it's all right, I had a ball making this comment and I might make a video out of it I don't know.

[@sunlight941]

This discussion throws me back to the good old "Dark Humor vs «Dark Humor»". Cypher was almost just as immovable as Volk, and that's a pity because I felt like he barely ever tried to rethink his position, even after admitting to agree with some of FC's points; when that's the case, the debate tends to last so much longer than it normally would and it can get exhausting for both parties, especially if it gets to the point of having to explain the same points and concepts over and over again. Your choice of background music has made it very enjoyable for us KZbin audience, though. Good job with that.

[@mimi-qn9zf]

volk was just straight-up stupid. i feel like cypher had a point but just wasn't eloquent enough to explain it - for example bringing up the comedic device point. he just couldnt properly explain anything, where as volk just repeated over and over. they both are extremely stubborn though yes.

[@Cynx303]

Basically humor isn’t subjective, people’s sense of humor is

[@digishade7583]

Here’s the kicker: what’s the difference?

[@ripizhonubi7472]

@@digishade7583 one is a comunicated concep, the other is a feeling

[@digishade7583]

@@ripizhonubi7472 not really it being a feeling is basically calling it an emotion which is not what a sense of humour is. You’re probably thinking of amusement which is an emotion

[@Kobaaming090]

​@@digishade7583making a good joke is objective. Whether or not you found it funny is subjective.

[@theaviator1152]

10:45 This in itself is a subjective opinion. 10:58 Harry just called it “a joke.” That means it *is* humor, or at least intended to be such. All jokes (in this definition) are humor. I don’t think everybody’s reaction to common things (e.g. knock knock jokes) are always examples of conditioning. It depends on whether or not somebody would do the same thing had they been isolated from society their whole lives. For example, Harry could claim that cheering when you see a sports play, or saying “bless you” when someone sneezes is conditioning, and that would be true, since somebody who hadn’t seen these phenomenons before wouldn’t do such a thing. But if he claimed something like “crying when you are sad is conditioning,” that would be untrue since it is something that somebody does naturally on their own. If Harry is saying things like ‘laughing at commonly-formatted jokes or jokes with well-known punchlines is conditioning and therefore those things aren’t humor” I believe that is wrong. Those jokes are still humor because they are intended to be funny, they just might not be humorOUS to everybody. Harry is partially correct in that some people probably don’t laugh at those because they find them funny but instead because they know they are expected to laugh, so for some people the reaction is brought on by conditioning. 11:19 This is a dumb statement. ‘Being amused’ and ‘finding something funny’ are synonymous, not a result of one or the other. This is like him saying “you are also conditioned to be entertained by things you find fun to watch.” It doesn’t really mean anything. 13:29 I always find Harry’s extreme word choice hilarious. “Indoctrination.” He often sounds as if he’s a 250 IQ conspiracy theorist describing why everything everybody does day-to-day is caused by society brainwashing them into doing so. And I mean it’s probably true in many cases. Doing laundry when your clothes are dirty is conditioning. In fact, many manners- and hygiene-related things are conditioning. You likely wouldn’t bother with cleanliness if you hadn’t been convinced by others that being filthy or “a slob” or whatever is an unappealing thing. Without conditioning, most people would probably be “lazy” and act in whichever way in most convenient-eating everything with your hands in whichever location you please, having unkempt hair (since there’s no reason to believe tidying it is beneficial), littering since there’s been no conditioning to tell us it’s better not to, sleeping wherever is comfortable, et cetera.

[@haven_lady675]

Yeah it's weird and a bit ominous. Conspiracy theorists are most likely to hurt people to prove a point just because.

[@frenchbaguetteintelligence]

10:45 It appears you don’t know what objective means. What Harry is saying by calling his observation objective is that it something dependent on opinion. There are things that either are or aren’t, and it’s not a matter of opinion. Maybe Harry’s observation is correct, or maybe it is wrong. Either way, it isn’t up to you. That makes it objective. 10:58 “Ha, ha. You did a whoopsie!” This comment is as stupid as thinking you made a point because someone made a spelling mistake. Even if he doesn’t believe it is a joke, it is meant to come across as one, so calling it one is neither unexpected nor weird, or even a mistake. Ironically, however, you just made an objective observation by suggesting that whether something is DEFINITELY a joke just because somebody called it one. Though objective as it may be, it is both wrong and stupid, because in a way, for doing things, you’re beginning to see things the way Harry does, so for someone who’s trying to disagree with him, this is ironic. It becomes even more ironic when you realize this predicament started with you trying to say he contradicted himself for calling something a joke, (when that is still what it is called, even if he doesn’t agree with it) and the conclusion was you just completely destroying your first argument. Now, your entire second paragraph is weird, because nobody said, at any fucking point, that everybody’s reaction to everything is conditioning. Oh, wait… Actually, someone did: Cypher, not Harry. This whole paragraph is attempting to counter an argument Harry never made. “If Harry is saying things like ‘laughing at commonly-formatted jokes or jokes with well-known punchlines is conditioning and therefore not humor…” yeah, no. That is not what he is saying. At all. What he is saying is thats *certain*, **CERTAIN**, memes that are popular do not have any real comedic value besides being popular, arguing that if they weren’t popular, they wouldn’t amuse anybody. Whereas there are other popular memes that do not depend on this factor. An example he gave was dad jokes, which he admitted despite not even liking them himself. “Those jokes are still humor because they are intended to be funny.” First and foremost, not all humor looks to be funny, as discussed in the video. Secondly, something intending to be, and something being, is two different things. That is why you are intending to be funny, rather than being.

[@dumass804]

@@frenchbaguetteintelligence what criteria do you use to determine if something is funny? If we're going by the dictionary definition, then it's something that people find amusing, humorous or laugh at (I'm assuming it means laughter of amusement as opposed to any other sort of laughter). By that logic, only one person needs to find the joke amusing for it to be funny.

[@mementomori3665]

@@frenchbaguetteintelligence stroke?

[@-hello6177]

@@frenchbaguetteintelligence Ah yes, It's not an opinion, it's a yet to be proved fact

[@nyx_nycto]

Loved the first debate. Honestly, watching the British and the French bicker never gets old, y’all are HILARIOUS. Also, 2 year anniversary of this video being out, lets goooo‼️‼️‼️‼️🎉

[@reddraddev]

if people complain about humor slowly getting stupider, will gen z be complaining in a decade or two that humor is just a pink square or something?

[@funninoriginal6054]

I dont think so. We're already drying up the wells of post irony so much some people are simply going back to stuff you'd see on facebook, so i think future humor is just gonna be recycled stuff from the past 20 years

[@oliverparis3361]

Almost certainly, it would be like the moai emoji meme just with a different meaning, if they can be bothered to find one.

[@R8Spike]

I mean we made songs about the leter E so it prob can't get any worse

[@reddraddev]

@@R8Spike i don't think this statement will age well...

[@rainbowpikmin]

new French Baguette Intelligence for my birthday, how sweet!

[@caiawlodarski5339]

The fact that you can analyse humor does not make it objective, because you are not actually analysing it from an objective standpoint, you are analysing why *people* find it funny and since what people find it funny is subjective by default your analysis is also subjective. It can be useful in the context of "comedy classes" because what different people find funny can often overlap, but that does not make it objective. In essence, there is no meaningful distinction from the so called "reception" and humor itself, because humor fundamentaly depends on the subjective reception of human beings to exist in the first place. Same thing for writing, when asked by what objective parameters writing should be judged from people often answer "consistency", when further questioned *why* that parameter should be used, their only response is "because audiences like it when writing is consistent. My brother in christ, if your parameters depend on the subjective lenses of humans to sustain themselves, they are, by definition, not objective. All art falls under this, art only has value when looked at through the lenses of human beings, you cannot put a painting in a lab to determine it's quality.

[@frenchbaguetteintelligence]

Observing why people find something funny is objective. Why I find something may be subjective, but whether it is true that this is why I find something funny is not. It seems like you do not fully understand what objective means.

[@caiawlodarski5339]

@@frenchbaguetteintelligence "objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being." This is exactly why I dislike these kinds of arguments actually, they lower the standards for "objectivity". What someone finds funny will always depend on their subjective biases, you may make an rational analysis of why that person finds something funny, but the parameters of your analysis will always be subjective by default, making it not truly objective.

[@gavinwilson5324]

@@caiawlodarski5339 Tell me, is the field of psychology objective or subjective?

[@Nyanvic]

@@gavinwilson5324 Subjective, because it depends on interpretation of words and feelings. Neuroscience is objective tho and psychology is backed by it, therefore making it reliable subjective field with objective results.

[@-hello6177]

@@gavinwilson5324 the vision of a pattern is a fact (or at least close enough to one), the existence of the pattern and it's cause is influenced by feelings, some parts of it are objective, other sections of it are objective

[@saltcrab6419]

I'm pretty sure I said something like this in the discord server like, 4 months ago or something.

[@b0realis527]

Oh god, when you said "With enough conditioning I could convince people to find a ringing bell funny" It already does exist. The Taco bell sound effect. It's worse than you thought...

[@eauk]

OMG THE INTRO . ??? I HAD THE SAME THOUGT AS FC JUST LIKE LESS THAN A WEEK AGAO LIKE ABOUT THE EXACT AAME JOKE??? THAGS SO CRAYZ.

[@BRAZILIAN_MIKU]

I laughed at "cue the laughing track" am i safe or will french baguette intelligence come to my house and start debating about humour?

[@commanderdemonno9819]

13:03 alright, unrelated to the debate and all that, but the animation of von karma PARRYING that mug toss is cool

[@magicalgio]

5:43 the entire French Baguette Intelligence fandom

[@rafaeldasilvaromero3362]

I would love to thank you for giving me in the description the time where the actual debate starts, but seeing that the first part is a Bowl vs Faux cares, then I decide to watch it every time, and sometimes watch only that part. Seriously, they made a good comic duo.

[@randomcringeyyoutuber6750]

It's funny when Bowl says he's trying to teach us how to say nice things about the sunrise because all British people know the weather fucking sucks and it's always raining

[@celinhooliveira3716]

The argumentation went by so long It looped around being interesting to funny to interesting again

[@toad786]

Someone literally said "amogus" to me when I said something that wasn't even humorous.

[@afpnia1068]

this video mentions that attention span is being crippled by how things just are nowdays when there have been studies saying our attention span hasnt changed at all or has very slightly changed.

[@IkeyDkey]

These videos are making me better at realising just how bad I am at arguing.

[@biryoutubekullancs4071]

This reminded me a trend in Turkish social accounts. This trend was created by a KZbinr called Saniye about one year ago. Idk how to describe it but it was Turkish version of a TikTok trend that played some song and said “we don’t care”. In Turkish version , the song was same but instead of “we don’t care” there was “bane”. Bane is not a word in Turkish. It is shortened version of “banane” which means “idc”. Saniye, the KZbinr who created this trend, made a video how he actually created it. He worked with about 100 people on discord. They all uploaded videos at the same time and then liked each others’ videos. After this trend started to become more popular, Saniye convinced a popular TikToker (idk remember his name but he is really popular) to make a video with this sound. After that, this sound became really popular in Instagram and TikTok. Funnily, nobody remembers it now. Nobody refers to it. Nobody uses “bane”. Saniye also opened a TikTok account as an experiment (I don’t remember when). He used stolen content and became really popular there. He also made a TikTok that he weighed himself before and after pooping. In the video, he showed as if he lost two kilograms and some people really believed it. As you realized , English isn’t my native language so if I made any grammar or spelling mistake I’m really sorry. Btw, saniye means second.

[@papanasty6754]

At this point, I'm convinced that Cypher is this fictitious being that exists purely to be a counter argument that is unable to critically think about the opposing argument as well being unaware about the irony in him saying he is not being condescending while speaking in such a manner that presents him to be just that.

[@furcornmanwiththemasterpla8380]

As much as I hate to admit it, it's really fun to be the contrarian, so I can't even blame him on that behalf.

[@carloscastellanosdarkeyesi6126]

He does make good points often, it's just that his opinions are uncommon among the group and his debatings skills are lacking

[@mangounit9678]

cypher was right though, he just failed to explain it correctly

[@velvetphi]

Man, I always root for Cypher when he shows up, because the guy's got good points now and again, but he's bad at actually explaining them well, as well as properly asking for clarification on the positions he's debating against. Like, if he had asked "okay, define to me the exact parameters of humor, so as to show me why these jokes aren't humor", and then argued from a more good faith perspective, I think he'd actually have some decent footing. Here's hoping he pops off against someone one day.

[@PoundersPlatinum]

11:45 “…I could condition people to find the sound of a bell ringing funny…” Boy, do I have news for you…

[@Jrpg_guy]

I only have discovered this channel recently and it proves clearly to me that I rearly have the chance to have such dicussion like this in real life. Which why I find this videos very enjoyable and thought provoking. I do hope you all continue to make this videos and have arguments like this. I am also very impressed by the knowledge you all have about this different topics. Even thought this dicussion are probably longer then shown here, you all beat most people I know when it comes to all different things of topics and trivia. So thank you all for making this channel.

[@jnnyiy]

These are geuinely so fun to watch lol. Something about seeing real life discussions turned into video game dialogues makes it that more interesting. Can't imagine the amount of work that must go into editing each sentence and movement.

[@littlemoth4956]

What made the nickel joke funny was that it was a novel way to say it as opposed to the way it is typically said. Usually it's used as a way to say something happened many times, but this expectation is subverted when it is shown to only have happened twice. The problem with people who reuse this template alongside "nobody", "plot twist", "also x:", is that they are utterly lacking in the creativity and style that made the joke's first telling special. People thought it was funny because it was new, not because it's the best damn joke in the world. If you want to repeat their success, come up with a joke yourself.

[@Dave_Chrome]

This whole "what is humor and what is conditioning" thing is wholly dependent on _why_ someone laughs at something. Humor in general I believe is the acknowledgement of an absurdity. Whether it's a well setup joke ending in a subversive payoff, or a "lol so random" joke that's funny because it's genuinely unexpected in whatever context it's popping up in (then que years of people being obnoxiously repetitive with "random" humor, staling the entire form, making them funnily enough become expected, played out, and thus unfunny), or making light out of something extremely dark in an ironically tone-deaf way, or even referencing something completely unrelated to what's being talked about and somehow connecting the two in a surprisingly fitting way (lots of memes are used like this, like quotes from movies, games, and other pop culture influences being applied to something), humor is based on these technical truths, these "half truths". It makes you look at something in a way you haven't thought of before. This moment of shock is almost a "lightbulb" moment, and we respond by laughing! I'd argue the base of all humor derives from this. Good jokes are inherently creative. I think when someone says something is unfunny, they're really saying "I don't buy the absurdity here; this is mundane, unoriginal, unchallenging". And, humor can be found in things that are absolutely not meant to be jokes. Any absurdity can produce humor. If someone who is supposed to be funny turns out to be chronically unfunny, that in-and-of itself _is_ funny. People lacking self-awareness is overall funny as hell, it's why "cringe" and otherwise embarassing situations are so widely memed on. I guess my main point here is that anything can be humorous based on your point of view, especially when you consider the "joke" being laughed at may not even be the joke being presented. EDIT: I think I could do a little better connecting this all to the video and to the concept of conditioning, so here's an addendum. What you personally find funny is subjective, and what is humor is objective, but no one has the ability to grasp all humor. Different people will find different things to be absurd, different things that will challenge their world view (what's ironic to them, what's stupid, what they're not expecting, what is clever versus what's obvious). It's part of why our literal "sense of humor" changes as we develop as human beings. As we grow, our sphere of expectations are constantly evolving, sources of humor start out fresh and then grow stale. I'd extend this beyond simply "no longer finding something funny": I'd say a lot of people try to pass objective judgement on things they should still acknowledge as being absurd. "Potty humor", poop-jokes, farts, they are genuinely absurd for very young people, who had only recently grasped bodily functions and how gross they are. To them, attention being brought to something so gross and maybe even taboo in their young mind is absolutely a subversion of their expectations. And for some people, this persists into adulthood. It still remains legitimate, because they can still feel that absurdity and be caught offguard by it. People who have overly negative responses to humor they deem illegitimate, I think just fear what finding something "dumb" funny could say about them. If you laugh at humor you think is for the lowest-common-denominator type of person, maybe you think that's indicative of a lack of experience. In other words, maybe that means you yourself haven't been conditioned (I'm using the term differently here than in the video) to have tolerance towards an absurdity you think you should have already developed tolerance to. It's why people say "oh my god, that's so stupid why did I laugh at that haha" and start laughing at themselves laughing. And it's also why many people act like such elitists over humor; they're self-conscious and insecure. And also, a good point is brought up in the video regarding how not all humor is meant to be laughed at. I'd add that this can be true regarding an intended audience, but any humor can still be laughed at by someone. Sarcastic insults are used as an example: the person giving the insult may be in a bad mood considering they had the passion to come up with the insult, and the person receiving it isn't likely to laugh even if it clever, because they are being insulted. But third parties can definitely laugh at an insult like that, the people watching these videos of heated arguments set to ace attorney characters, music, and sound effects definitely laugh at that humor all the time. And humor meant to be amusing and/or thought provoking, can realistically still be laughed at based on how much stakes the person hearing the humor has in the subject matter. If you make a joke comparing an authoritarian regime to a shitty deadend job, the people living under said regime may find that deeply interesting in a grim way (maybe they refuse to acknowledge the humor because it's too unsettling), versus someone from a completely different spot in the world who just thinks it's funny and laughs. In the video, social conditioning is brought up as a reason why people might think something is humorous when it really isn't. I'd argue, that social conditioning (spreading/laughing at something because other people act like it's funny to them) ONLY explains an absense of humor... from the point of view of the person affected by that conditioning. That logic only applies if that is solely why the person has that relationship with "the joke"; they really "don't get it", but pretend to, because everybody else seems to. That is them not being capable of grasping the humor: Humor is pointing out absurdity, experiences make what was once absurd become common, and thus desensitization (and other factors mentioned above) kills the laugh response. And if you know so little about a joke that you can't see why it's absurd, you might laugh anyway to pretend that you do. Someone shouting out "deez nutz" randomly without context, prompt to do so, and in poor taste, can actually be humorous believe it or not, if 1. It's your first time hearing that phrase 2. You've not been exposed to that type of humor very often, that "lol so random" type stuff It's funny, when people say _"I don't see why that's funny",_ it's actually a precise assessment of exactly what's going on. They cannot see the humor. It's there, just not for them. I think in the case of the example above, it's not there for the vast majority of us lmao So... what's funny to you is subjective in the sense that other responses to humor can override pleasure or laughing (like cancer jokes to someone who's had cancer affect their life, etc.), or you outright do not understand the joke because of lack of exposure to the source material/you just don't get it, and despite humor being objective, nobody is able to comprehend all of it, because something humorous is only detectable by someone who finds the absurdity. Social conditioning is a revoking of experiences that tells someone "hey, this isn't funny", causing them to give in to pressure and pretend. But, this doesn't mean that there's no humor there, because there are sets of experiences out there to find humor in just about anything. Me personally, I don't see the humor in a lot of things. And I also don't find quite a few humorous things funny. That being said, it's impossible to see all the humor in the world, and resonate with everything you do find. And that's okay.

[@FlashOfSonic]

Tbh I feel like even the dumbest memes can be used well. An example of this is in the Sonic 2 movie; in the opening scene, when Robotnik is questioned by Knuckles on where he got Sonic's quill, he says "From a little blue menace on a planet called Earth. I'd be happy to show you the way." This adds a humorous element to the scene for those familiar with the Ugandan Knuckles meme; however, it not rely on this familiarity in order for audiences to get what they need to out of the scene, nor does having that familiarity detract from the scene's narrative weight.

[@TheoTungsten]

Man these conversations make me question my individuality, if it even exists.

[@crazycryo5856]

Humor is, in fact, subjective. Let’s look at the definition of humor: “the quality of being amusing or comic, especially as expressed in literature or speech.” Well seeing as what is amusing is subjective, then humor, which is simply something that has the subjective quality of being amusing, would also necessarily be subjective. If something (let’s say x) is defined by possessing a subjective attribute, (Which we’ll call Y), then what is and is not X will be dependent solely on if the individual thinks it does or does not posses Y. Call it the Objectively Subjective Principle.

[@miuboy4578]

I think you're right. But I also think that they were mostly talking about jokes, rather than humour and just used humour as an overarching name for it. Because what a joke is, is always objective. You can't just splurt out random nonsense and expect people to laugh (Well, you can in the case of memes, but thats a bit different).

[@crazycryo5856]

I mean absurdist humor exists, and the whole point of that is just being random. Not really my cup of tea though lmao.

[@GreyReBl]

I find humor to be like tickling, but for the brain. Both reason (understanding) and instinct (conditioning) are tools used to cause amusement or laughter. Energy and delivery are factors observed in humor, which justifies absurdities like "loud = funny" because silliness is contagious. This is basically the domain of the Clown. Old cartoon slap-stick was once the heart of this, and now that evolved to modern memes. Though, memes are transcendent. They impart both understanding and conditioning, spreading like a disease yet enlightening people of the cultures they came from. Edit: Actually, I could even go a step further. Humor itself is the appreciation of absurdity. A joke is funny because it's something absurd, and absurdities can be found through either reason or the defiance of reason, two sides of the same coin. It's madness.

[@thelmainoah]

Seeing harry and cypher argue is like, the most epic thing I've ever seen

[@iguessimhere2632]

Cypher causes me to lose brain cells due to him accusing the whole chat room of being pretentious while simultaneously being the most pretentious person in the chat room

[@-hello6177]

all his claims is that their assumptions over how other people are saying everyone doesn't understand their own humor are incorrect, how the fuck is a counterclaim for two people being wrong more pretentious than their claims about the general populace

[@thesquishedelf1301]

@@-hello6177 Because the folks in the server are obviously working with some pre-existing tenets that Cypher routinely ignores. 1) There’s an inherent humility in having the discussion on a Discord server. They have no effect on the real world and are functionally powerless hobbyists. They complain and discuss for fun rather than starting an organisation to proselytise their messages. They even go so far as to routinely play Devil’s Advocate to humble each other and whittle down biases as a philosopher should. 2) “On The Internet, Nobody Knows You’re A Dog.” Their pretentiousness is, in part, a character act. They are all playing a character to the server. If they weren’t, Bowl would not fit in so well. This is not to say they’re actively acting - but humans tend to alter their behaviour in different situations. I’m sure Harry didn’t give the redacted rant to his boss, otherwise he’d plausibly be in prison from the sounds of it. To be fair, this same argument applies to Cypher. Doesn’t make his character’s refusal to acknowledge the tenets less infuriating. 3) Self-humility is promoted. E.g., FC acknowledges he’s a whiny little bitch of a man, Bowl takes pride in his ability to derail a conversation, Harry is clearly aware he has a stilted communication pattern, Gringo is aware of his relatively sheltered viewpoint and lack of world knowledge. Cypher claims their observations are wrong often not on the basis of actually being disprovable, but by claiming they’re simply pretentious. He may point in the general direction of an idea, but rather than elaborate he wastes effort on complaining that the others are pretentious. He’d be much more appreciated if he self-deprecated once in a while instead of just shouting “you’re all WRONG and PRETENTIOUS” as if that means anything without an argument to back it up.

[@tygrysazjatycki]

I swear everytime i see someone making among us reference in 2022 i want to commit self yeet

[@mathgeniuszach]

1:32 - TMW you casually insult millions of peoples' childhoods because you overhear and misunderstand a single joke

[@megamagicmonkey]

I would say Deez Nuts is humor. It functions kind of like an inside joke, recalling to a previous event. The humor comes from being in the know. If you say “Deez Nutz” to the pope, he might not get it. If he responded in a way to suggest he’s in the know, it’d be pretty wild because you wouldn’t expect it. An expression of culture and tradition. An understanding of common ground. The thrill of understanding is these are “your people”. The real critique I think is that it’s so wide-spread, it’s not really an in-joke anymore. Still, its presence as a phenomena can be used to hilarious effect. I also wouldn’t call humor objective, but there are known qualities to it. There’s a quality of “you know it when you see it”, but I don’t think there’s a metric to it. No hard values. Humor can be misinterpreted as well, which I would suggest further strains the idea that it’s objective. Also, Harry, you’re almost disturbingly clinical in your presentation of the world, but I am glad you pointed out the nature of argumentation that opposing a view, or suggesting an alternative does not equate to presenting yourself as superior, and that reactions to arguments in such a way are expressions of insecurity. I think that’s very important.

[@_Nykolaii_]

Tbh i feel likethe reason i laugh at random garbage is because i'm so deprived of happiness and im very lonely. And brain damaged at this point.

[@falconeclover3857]

Harry's own Cornered theme at 17:35 goes so hard in the moment Damn. I wonder what song it is?

[@insertedintothestudio_owner]

"come up with new insults, you one-trick dick" i loved that personally

[@Luksed12]

The Faux vs Bowl segment was genuinly probably the hardest I laughed (out loud) in years

[@coltonk.3086]

I'm going to be completely honest, FC and Harry are COMPLETELY ON POINT. Something that's vexed me for much longer than I care to admit is "why is SOME 'lol random' humor funny, but not all of it?" Most of the time when I hear "Deez nuts" or random sentences passed off as jokes, in this case, "bark, bark. Time for lard." I laugh, but I'm extremely confused while doing so. It's not funny to me, but I'm laughing hysterically as if it was the greatest joke of all time. Thank you so much for this video. These really help me kick up my debates to the next level!

[@monke7566]

humor is bad, embrace boredom

[@DanielSilva-ke1uy]

Sincerely, this conversation could be brought by a simple matter: Morbius. Again, wonderful video, Faux.

[@ninjaindy3078]

New almost 40 minute video about humor by FBI? Well it looks like today is going to be a pretty good day!

[@SamuelOrtega-it6mq]

Happy two year anniversary of this video🎉

[@turquoiseomen1881]

Admitting following a trend and be amused by conditionement doesn't make it inherently bad either. I feel like people try too hard to convince themselves and others that they are above following trends and they make their own destiny or whatever when they have this kind of conversation They are afraid to appear weak and sheepish. But habits, social conditionnement and trends are part of our routine, that makes sense and make things easier, it's human. Following a trend, or this kind of conditionnement is not a loss of free will., at least in the jokes/memes branch. I have allowed myself to be conditionned to like and be amused whenever the character Neko-Arc appears in memes, while the simple mention of "sus/amogus" makes my blood boil and my face cringe since the trend's debut. There is a degree of subjectivity in which trends stick to us too. In any case, great video. I really like the arguments and thinking going on through the debate.

[@baitornot4697]

I feel like the KZbin comment section is a big contest to see who can put out the most creative or funny comments, and we are all losing this competition.

[@VJ2099]

Honestly, this video made me realize that I laugh at a lot of stuff that isn’t really funny. I wasn’t sure why at first but I think it’s because some things can be so stupid and unfunny that they ironically become funny so I actually end up laughing at how unfunny and stupid something is. I think that’s also something to factor in as to why some people find some things humorous even though those things might not be that funny at all. Like dad jokes, they’re not really funny and they’re stupid. Sure some people might genuinely find them funny and laugh but some people who don’t think they’re funny might ironically find themselves laughing at them anyway because of how stupid the dad jokes are themselves. The same could be said for memes and deez nuts jokes. Anyway great video as always FBI. Also, goddamn I love bowl, no homo 😆

[@doormantdarner7815]

Yeah but there’s nothing wrong with finding them funny if you take enjoyment from them. Sometimes what can be classed as humour does not inherently have to be funny and there’s no inherent objective truth for what people must or mustn’t take enjoyment from

[@VJ2099]

True

[@BlindBosnian]

Bowl would be very sad if he saw that "no homo" at the end

[@simplyeyeronic1443]

"Knock knock" "Whos there?" "DEEZ NUTZ" "CUE LAUGHING TRACK" Ad plays. Got me

[@BaeYeou]

Thank you so much for making me feel sane in my ideology that memes should operate like a mental virus. I've noticed that the older memes that we generally tend to remember fondly are those that are extremely flexible and able to adapt based on who it's targeting (with the exception of the Rick Roll, but even then I'd still say it's better than modern memes because the song is actually good), whereas a lot of modern memes that pop up and die within a week are just based on a phrase that can't apply well to a lot of different scenarios (Ugandan Knuckles, Amogus, Deez Nuts, etc). I say that the majority of Gen Z (probably not the older end of Gen Z though) are like children who have grown up in a fully sterile environment; they've had zero experience cultivating a strong sense of humour, and simply laugh at something because it gets spread around, much like how a child who grows up in a fully sterile environment can't build up their inmune system and is more likely to develop allergies and have bad reactions to common illnesses. Basically, Gen Z are so sterilised and have very little experience with variation that they'll just laugh about damn anything (see Durr Plant, an accidental meme made originally for the sole purpose of mocking these simplistic copy-paste-a-phrase memes).

[@UraniumFractal]

That’s an incredible analogy

[@littlemoth4956]

You are using examples of long-lasting memes from the past and comparing them to short-lived memes now. It's a false equivalence. Of course you don't remember any of the short-lived memes of the past. It was so long ago that you obviously can't remember it due to this and how fast it died out. It's not fair to compare them because you are cherry-picking memes that were good enough to stand the test of time out of the hundreds that didn't, and comparing them directly to the failures of today. Your argument would only stand if you actually brought up examples of long-lasting memes from today. Here, I'll do one: amogus. Amogus is a good meme by your standards because it IS adaptable to many different scenarios. The fact that Among Us was so widespread for children and teens going through online schooling made it a universal and relatable experience to see hours worth of gameplay on the daily. As such, the idea of the game becoming warped and being seen in the most mundane objects - such as trash cans and fire alarms - is funny. This IS versatile. It's a joke that can come up in daily life, which leads to yet another joke - the idea that this game, alongside quarantine and all the polarization that came with it, has imbedded itself in people's minds in a way they cannot recover. Now, with that out of the way, I want to address your confusing logic here. "older memes that we generally tend to remember fondly" Who is "we"? Your generation? What YOU grew up with? Sounds like nostalgia to me. Either way, it seems to be somewhat hidden personal bias. "are extremely flexible and able to adapt based on who it's targeting" This is vague, with no further explanation or example. Not to mention - this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the video or a single point actually made in it. The idea that a meme is funny or good because it is versatile is preposterous and a completely arbitrary distinction made by you and you alone. In fact, you don't even say that - you just bring it up without connecting it to an argument. You never explain the claim you are making, besides implying the obvious - that memes we remember are memes that can be used a lot. "I say that the majority of Gen Z (probably not the older end of Gen Z though) are like children who have grown up in a fully sterile environment" Do you know what sterile means? I can tell you, it makes no sense as a word to be used here. Even if we used a similar word for this situation specifically, it would still make absolutely no sense. What does this mean? What is a "sterile environment"? How does this connect to older or newer memes? Also, why do you say this? Apparently you know the upbringing of the majority of the entire planet's next generation? "they've had zero experience cultivating a strong sense of humour" What on earth is a "strong sense of humor"? What defines that? How does one "build" a sense of humor? The idea of a "strong" or "built" sense of humor, as if it can be better or worse than others is an oxymoron. Both sides defined IN THE VIDEO that one's personal tastes in humor is subjective. Also, again, how do you know this? Any example, explanation, or source as to how? "simply laugh at something because it gets spread around" And older memes aren't? Memes being versatile isn't an example of this? Also, why do you say "simply", as if this is a bad thing? "much like how a child who grows up in a fully sterile environment can't build up their inmune system and is more likely to develop allergies and have bad reactions to common illnesses." I, just... what? I can't even begin to explain how disconnected this comparison is. I guess it's like... building up your standard for what jokes make you laugh? "Basically, Gen Z are so sterilised and have very little experience with variation that they'll just laugh about damn anything" Firstly, this argument in your third and fourth paragraphs is utterly disconnected from what you were saying in the second. It doesn't even remotely follow. Secondly, you are essentially saying "kids laugh at stupid memes because they don't have the taste to laugh at good memes". Your argument is based in the "circular reasoning" fallacy. This means your reasoning for a claim is the claim itself. The reason that kids have bad taste is because they don't have good taste. Overall, none of your arguments make sense. You just made a bunch of claims then proceeded to skip the reasoning for them in favor of making another, or worse, using another claim as reasoning. This entire comment is a non-sequitur. It doesn't logically follow from the video, and it doesn't follow even itself.

[@BaeYeou]

​@@littlemoth4956 Sorry for using personal language in an argument like this, but I didn't actually expect someone to respond so seriously. I'll try to rephrase my argument such that it makes more sense to you. My point was that most modern memes nowadays die quickly due to their inherent inflexibility and inability to evolve. Older memes survive by being adaptable, and most modern memes die quickly by not being adaptable; this lines up with your showcase of my "cherry-picking". However, this correlation is disrupted by conditioning as displayed by Joe Mama, Amogus, Deez Nuts, Big Chungus. etc, because despite there not being anything objectively humorous, people laugh due to social conditioning. If I had to place this within my virus analogy, it'd be like if more and more people just didn't do anything in response to a virus, and let it spread with less resistance. I agree that it's not a fair comparison to look between older memes with a legacy nowadays to viral memes without the capacity to evolve because the conditions aren't the same; there's most likely more conditioning on a larger, international scale now due to how interconnected the internet is now. Small friend groups can affect subcommunities, which can affect even larger communities, all due to ease of communcation and access to networks. It's like comparing sickness rates to a population separated between islands to the same population within a singular landmass; it'll take less time for the latter due to how the former requires a boat or a plane rather than just a person walking to an uninfected neighbour. Effectively older memes and modern memes still find virality, but the latter I don't believe will survive entirely without conditioning due to how a lot of them depend on a singular unchanging element with anything else (again, Joe Mama, Amogus, Deez Nuts, Big Chungus). I believe they work better as an element within a meme rather than a full meme itself.

[@BaeYeou]

@@UraniumFractal I'll admit it's not entirely original, though; I think I got the idea primarily from CGP Grey's "This Video Will Make You Angry". Still, it's a great anaolgy on his end!

[@bojo1942]

1:43 Slammin the desk like he’s Donkey Kong

[@echo7zip765]

Bark, bark. Time for lard: the next meme

[@tinpot976]

This video's conversations are so out-of-pocket that I had a gigantic smile on my face all the time. Sometimes I even chuckled

[@tinpot976]

Also, I actually disagree that deez nuts isn't absurd; The idea of someone's testicles might be easy to comprehend, but the absurdity comes from saying that in such an unfitting situation and without even having the proper reason or context to do it, making it unreasonable/stupid I'm not gonna try to argue that it's funny because it's none of my business, but the human brain in general likes to find absurd (aka senseless) things funny, no?

[@knightshade2654]

3:50 I heavily agree with this point due to how often people have commented that I insist on using complete sentence and a minimal amount of messages. I admit that I am guilty of enjoying “snowclone” memes, such as the P&F one mentioned or the “I wish x was real” that I made a joke about earlier. While I try to avoid memes where the joke is that it *is* a meme, with the example that always comes to mind is the “they did surgery on a grape”, but that ends up with hypocrisy on my part in some way due to my aforementioned interest in snow clones.

[@bojo1942]

When you bang a baguette it should be called a banguette

[@atl6266]

The more I watch these the more I question my sense of self

[@sunlightsage2982]

Harry has gone beyond needing his gun to kill someone. GawDAMM.

[@Michael-fw9xb]

The existence of Bowl is inherently funny.

[@alexandermendoza381]

Ironically, I found the laughing track funny as it appeared when talking about it, but not when requested previously