corboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real test of a relationship is whether you are
> respected *after* you have become trustful and
> emotionally involved.

This is so true.

In my experience there are several different versions of destructive humour. There's the kind where someone thinks their perspective on life is so hilarious that they don't care whether you're hurt or not. They don't listen when you tell them that you're very badly wounded by their words, because they think they are so witty that they can't imagine a world where their stupid BS is harmful. I endured years of this at the hands of my ex-husband who couldn't see that his relentless "jokes" about my body were very distressing, even when he'd make 30 or 40 offensive and abusive comments a day. I would tell him over and over to stop, and he'd just keep laughing at me. He was so self-absorbed that he never saw me as a real person with bodily autonomy who was in relentless emotional pain, trying to silence my own pain minute by minute, hour by hour for years at a time just so he wouldn't throw a tantrum and threaten to end his life. That was the choice: "laugh at my jokes, play the role I demand of you, or I'll kill myself and it'll be your fault." In these situations, your life and identity is just not considered as real.

A different kind of abusive humour is one where someone -- a charismatic leader, an unskilled boss -- tries to pre-emptively guess what their detractors will say, and uses weaponised humour to take control first before objections can even be raised. By mocking anyone who might object to your message, you dehumanise them and de-legitimise their complaints. This allows you to sail smugly on whilst the people who had good reason to stop you are trapped behind a wall of laughter.

The third kind I've seen is very cold. It's targeted, always by an individual or a small group, and targeted at another individual. These comments are deeply personal, and very specifically chosen to cause the most shock and surprise. My group had a confession culture and the worst forms of this were where someone said something in confidence -- admitted to having been assaulted, perhaps, or were struggling with a mental health issue -- and were initially met with sympathy and the compassion that made them feel secure (lovebombing). But then, at a vulnerable moment, those experiences would be thrown out in public and twisted to become a targeted assault. No-one believed they were being funny, these moments were always cold and calculated. The target was always watched carefully in those moments so their extreme shock and confusion could be registered. As others have pointed out, this is just a test to see how far that person can be pushed. The perpetrator almost always finds a way of demanding immediate loyalty to stop the person from protesting, or twisting the situation even further to cause even more confusion and shame.

All of these forms are about control. It's different ways of creating distance between people, putting people down and making sure you feel like they are beneath you. In every single abusive situation, an emotional equal is a threat. An abuser needs to feel superior to others so uses humour to trample down others and elevate themselves.

I've seen a fourth version of weaponised humour too. This is where a group of people are sharing an innocent joke that doesn't hurt anyone, and doesn't target a single person. Someone external to that group comes in and starts screaming at them for all the ways in which the joke is offensive to them. It usually requires hours and hours of explanation.

I think this fourth version is very subtle because it's superficially close to the first. E.g., if you try to be a good person you'd want to listen when someone says you're being hurtful. So, in the fourth case, no good person would turn around and say, "no, this wasn't an offensive joke." Their response will be, "oh, I'm so sorry, I won't do it again!" In reality of course, the problem wasn't the specific joke, it was that a small group of people felt safe and comfortable enough to share a joke together. It was this which was perceived as a threat and which caused the perpetrator to lash out.

I think the fourth can be very prevalent in abusive groups and society at large. If humour is weaponised then so is its absence. The demand for seriousness and gravity at all times is just another form of control. A healthy sense of humour can be belittled and dismissed as all sorts of things. Again, I think it's the "controlling the threat" angle: if you let people laugh at anything, they might eventually laugh at you. Being able to learn to laugh healthily at the most absurd parts of my upbringing was something that took years, Even now it's pretty difficult.

I recall reading and replying to this thread some time ago, it is interesting to see the update Jupiter has posted, and I feel sad to read about those body jibes, it is no consolation but worth noting that peoples name calling (and accusations) is where that person is in themselves, it is never about the person targeted. Words belong with their speaker. I am also sad to re-read corboys experience. Therapy is not always beneficial it’s a fact.

I wanted to highlight this...

Quote
If humour is weaponised then so is its absence. The demand for seriousness and gravity at all times is just another form of control.

It is important to me because this pole opposite seriousness, it is found in many of those adherents of various groups and those who do not share the same serious outlook are outcast due to the threat.. fun is void,

..however when the leader / teacher / guru / or any other affiliated person in some degree of power over the group is not serious, displaying the thread topic manipulation already demonstrated, then this is perfectly fine, they are the idol who can do no wrong.

Using my own experience as an example, I have used comedy recently on this forum, but as a means to highlight how we are all different (and that’s ok), to try and lighten seriousness, and in standing up for myself. I felt it the nicer option over anything else for the classist treatment I was receiving for having a different outlook.

I was quickly ganged up on and made “wrong” by another who did not appreciate my lack of seriousness toward a specific guru teaching, simply because I had a different outlook and stood up for myself. They even threatened me with reporting me to that guru, as if I should be frightened (I understand, as they are under the same person).

In these particular instance I see no problem with humour if describing my differences, a person is dishing out hurt and expects no one to stand up to them, though making random jokes to weaponise someone as described here is a different story.

Here is a link to what brought me here, which is corboys response to a post I made in recovery:

[forum.culteducation.com]

In it, I pose the question: Is the contempt shown towards abusive behaviour more important than the abusive behaviour itself?

In the very relevant case of cults and manipulative / abusive groups and settings? No, it isn’t.

This is how weaponisation takes place, the focus on the actual abuse is removed and placed onto another through the weaponisation against themselves, deflecting away from the original source who / which continues on with what they are doing.

I personally, (and based on my small knowledge of the matter) currently connect the same weaponisation dynamic through observation in the situation with Ms. Britney Spears and her conservatorship, which is for anyone interested, a good (yet v. sad) example to have a look into it and see this sad reality in action.

Please note that I am not a professional, i can be considered as a stranger on the internet, with a certificate in life experience alone, which is more than enough for me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2021 03:12AM by facet.

This is interesting. I've noticed that this is one of the most significant personality changes on my side that I've experienced as a result of the group I was in (led by Rama/Frederick Lenz). Lenz used laughter and humor in his talks a lot. Although he could definitely be extraordinarily funny, I also have come to recognize that he was using humor as a way to control people too. As such I don't laugh nearly as much these days--I've come to be somewhat suspicious of laughter and humor.

.
[www.huffpost.com]

Take note of new joke patterns


“Kids that are watching a lot of ‘edgy’ streamers, YouTubers and other social media personalities might push the boundaries of propriety at home, consciously or subconsciously mimicking the tone of these ‘edgelords,’” Schroeder said.

Pay attention if your teen is sharing new jokes and memes that are out of character or outside the culture of humor in your family. Humor is often a tactic of extremist groups to cultivate a following."

And:

"In 2017, a leaked style guide from the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer highlighted the white supremacist organization’s strategy: “Packing our message inside of existing cultural memes and humor can be viewed as a delivery method. Something like adding cherry flavor to children’s medicine.”

While humor sometimes involves plausible deniability (“I was just kidding!”), try to disrupt the idea that jokes pushing racist and white supremacist ideologies don’t have real-world consequences. Ask your teen how they think that joke would sound to a friend who belongs to the group referenced.

“As a mom, if I heard this, I would take the opportunity to talk to my kids about how humor can be edgy without hurting anyone else ? and that saying ‘it’s just a joke’ doesn’t undo the harm done when a person or individuals who are targeted,” Schroeder said. “Often, these ‘just a joke’ jokes are ways to normalize harmful ideologies.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2022 01:39AM by corboy.

Edgelord

Quote

Poster on an Internet forum, (particularly 4chan) who expresses opinions which are either strongly nihilistic, ("life has no meaning," or Tyler Durden's special snowflake speech from the film Fight Club being probably the two main examples) or contain references to Hitler, Nazism, fascism, or other taboo topics which are deliberately intended to shock or offend readers.

[www.urbandictionary.com]

Edgelordism is not confined to the internet - it predates the internet.

The problem is that audiences quickly become habituated to outrageousness.

The edgelord must stay interesting or lose internet traffic.

Edgelords ramp up the nastiness abd hate. They get trapped in their potty mouth personae.

Their listeners become degraded and some may take their hate to the streets and become news fodder.

Laughter is often triggered by:

Fear
Disgust
Shock
Surprise
Confusion
Insecurity

There's nothing like a shared joke to promote a sense of togetherness.

But...what kind of togetherness is it?

And...at whose cost?

What kind of togetherness is this?

You're thirsty you need water.

How about drinking poo water from the toilet?

You're horrified.

You have standards.

Good.

We are thirsty for humor.

Some humor is as vile as poo water.

We don't drink water from just any source.

We can apply good standards to humor and still have fun.

Have a look at George Carlin, Mel Brooks, and the songs of Tom Lehrer.

They inspired laughter but not hate



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2022 02:07AM by corboy.

Corboy - I really appreciate your incisive analyses of the techniques used to induce mind control.
I am trying to unpack the hypnosis by Osho.
Seems to be Tony Robbins like?
Getting people to be "ecstatic"?