Ok you guys are total hard asses. I make one VTech joke on chat and poof insta ban!
Well let me tell you something.
Millions die each day, it's a fact of life. Thousands die from the African Genocide each day but do we really care. Honestly.
This site parodies any and all disasters mass murders and so forth. I mean you FEATURED an article that made fun of the death of millions. and last time I checked:
Several Millions > 32.
So as a provider of "all" humor can anyone say this is unjust? --
CartoonDiablo
- Steve Irwin wasn't murdered and the other things are long enough in the past so we can make fun of them. When someone is murdered, you don't make fun of them for a very, very long time. We're not tasteless. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 01:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- How about we not make fun of the tragic deaths of 32 innocent people days after the tragedy itself? I was going to ban you when I read that comment, but I see it was already done. Some things just don't need to be mined for comedy. --
» Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Way too soon. 70.59.139.16 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- It depends what the joke was, really. There's a fine line between a witty and enlightening comment about a tragedy and just being a dimwitted asshole. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[00:52:43] * CartoonDiablo has joined #uncyclopedia [00:52:50] <CartoonDiablo> GOOOOOOOOO VTEAM! [00:53:05] <CartoonDiablo> If cho can't shoot them noeone can!
...was the joke in question. I didn't really feel like putting up with the ED style (and yeah, I saw their page on it, that's exactly what it's like) "humour" at that point. If that was too harsh just let me know. Though remember - if STM said he would've done it, you must acquit. (p.s. A warning you if you mistakenly want to look up ED's page on it - it's got snuff on.) • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:54, 20 Apr 2007
- Well actually I and others made this Arab-Israeli Conflict (video game) during that whole time Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, etc were all trying to kill each other with missiles and bombs and stuff. It is all in the delivery, and we sort of took the sting out of it by making it a video game IRC chat type script. Yeah people were upset over it, but nobody got banned over it. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- The guy who made this topic made an Uncyclopedia is the worst-style post as his first topic though. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 06:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- In all honesty a lot of anonymous and new users usually do make topics like that at first. We sort of break them in after that and hope they become funnier. Usually they make an Uncyclopedia is the worst-style post because they don't understand the humor or the rules here. As far as humor goes, he may very well be one of Jerry's kids or a Mr. Stinky or whatever, but people have to start somewhere. Anyway I hope he learns from his mistakes and contributes better articles in the future and avoids the ED-style humor. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, I just read Forum:So you don't like unfunny crap and he seems to be from ED and came over here to stir up trouble. I gave him the benefit of the doubt because he is a n00b here. Perhaps I was mistaken? Oh well, more material to add to HATE HATE HAT. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
CartoonDiablo was from ED, but I honestly think he's trying to fit in here. It's just that what's ok there isn't always ok here. Mocking the murder of dozens does seem trivial when compared to the murder of millions, but we have to remember that we're still very close to the tragedy. Not everyone is going to consider that, especially if they aren't full-time Uncyclopedians. Just something to think about.--<<
>> 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I visited IRC briefly when Sonitpro, our only member who attends Virginia Tech, was also on. There was some serious discussion about the situation, and then a couple of preteen attention-whores started riffing about how they would kill 40 people at their school, and how they would go out in a "blaze of glory" by killing as many cops as they could. It was vicious, brain-dead stupidity. But it seems that lately the regular IRC channel is dominated by kids talking about shoving cucumbers up their asses or debating who can masturbate the fastest. I won't be going on chat again -- it's never been a regular hangout of mine, but as far as I'm concerned it's over. ----OEJ 15:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't IRC the Ham radio of this generation? --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 15:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are some valid points in Diablo's pantomime. Of course, the main reason the earlier articles were done were to satire the current state of things. Where as VT IS the current state of things, and really people dont need to be reminded now of what happened 2 days ago. --Nytrospawn 00:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
My opinion on this
From what I know, the jokes started sometime at Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4chan after the shootings had taken place. I have read the ED article, and I have found it quite funny in places (albeit in a bit of a sick way). The Uncyclopedia administrators are refusing jokes about this incident at the moment, supposedly to prevent sand-in-vagina syndrome from VTech students or other people.
I can agree that this is a suitable choice, but I also agree with CartoonDiablo. If you can make jokes about genocide and murder here (see Holocaust Tycoon), why can't you make jokes about this incident? Many people have done this, so why can't he?
--
» >UF|TLK|▋» 17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure you've read my comments before, and ask this rhetorically, as I answered it there. However, I will repeat this for the lazy who choose only to read the last post and nothing else. The problem has more to do with the proximity to the tragedy than the bad taste. It's like if someone walked into a party, shot a dozen people, then barracaded himself in a firefight with the police, taking everyone in the room hostage before shooting himself, and someone in the room quips, "Surely the food wasn't THAT bad." Distance (such as time) can make some jokes that are bad taste near a tragedy less so. Wait just a bit for people to mourn, and these jokes will be less painful to the people in question.--<<
>> 21:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm in a gallows humour mood, but your example was kind of funny. In a gallows humour kind of way. The rant that lead to the ban was not. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think whoever banned CartoonDiablo was doing the appropriate thing. If you wanna make a joke about the death of 32 innocent people, you go right ahead, you have the right. That kind of thing usually doesn't offend me much, it just makes me think "What an idiot..." I know plenty of people find it absolutely appalling. Those have every right to be offended, and I think CartoonDiablo should watch what he says. --Señor DiZtheGreat
CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's put this straight, Diablo. No matter the subject, I'm almost sure that you were kicked because of its execution. You have to be touchy when dealing with this kind - and actually any kind - of black humor. A thing like Holocaust Tycoon can resist here just because it's wickedly funny. While you read it, you have an angel telling you to click the X at the corner, but a little demon keep on tickling your armpits and so you laugh - you can't help it, you are going to hell, but you still laugh and that's why it's so funny. I bet that your article lacked these qualities and by so you give us a spoiled black humor conoction. Quite indigest. In sum... a ban doesn't hurt so much. I had one myself. One day maybe you will get used to the tortous ways of evil humor. -- herr doktor needsAraygun
[scream!] 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone forgot about this template?
--
» >UF|TLK|▋» 21:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- As the person who first used that template, before it was even a template (for War on Humor), I can say that no, I haven't forgotten. All my points from previous posts still stand.--<<
>> 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the key is tolerance here. And I'm not talking about tolerating the idiots who get banned and then complain despite knowing perfectly well it was going to happen. I mean tolerating those who need our patience for the moment.
Yes, I am among those who thinks "hang on a minute" and does a double-take at all the genocidey articles. Maybe it's because I'm English, but I admit I don't really 100% get how something that happened in your country means so much more than something bigger elsewhere. But I recognise that a lot of people have been affected, and I'm willing to give them some space even if I don't fully understand why they need it. Uncyc isn't going to crash and burn just because we wait a little while for them to feel better. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find some pointless VTech references to revert... -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If you kids are too young to know this guy, take your ass off this chair and run to your DVD rental store. Now! He's almost retired, but made stuff that easily qualify him for our Pantheon of humor gods. Brooks is Jew and is the author of Springtime for Hitler, a masterpiece of black humor - and written back in the 60's, when there were a lot more of holocaust survivors still alive. He also made humor of the Inquisition persecution of Jews in his History of Mankind Part 1 - he himself playing Torquemada, the inquisitor (in a musical part!!!). What was his secret? Just being freakin' hilarious! You can do the hell you want, but make good humor. An unfunny article is something undesirable, but a deeply politically incorrect unfunny article is a case to the police. --:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- While I may be late to the conversation, I don't believe that Mel Brooks wrote Springtime for Hitler in 1946. He waited a few years....
Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 04/25 21:27
- Yeah, but Charlie Chaplin filmed The Great Dictator in 1940. He still didn't know about concentration camps thus. Less than time, I guess it's a question of feeling. Being ironic, as I think CartoonDiablo has tried, demands a lot of real wit. --!] 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
...All this leads to some interesting philosoffikal ponderation. In fiction-writing classes, budding authors are encouraged to "take their fictional characters seriously" -- to treat them as real people, ie, with respect. It's sound advice: part of the power of fiction comes from the reader's willingness to identify personally with a character, and if the author gratuitously abuses the character then he will probably alienate the reader.
And satire? I suppose that parallel reasoning leads one to say that if one wants a reader to buy into a satirical piece then the author should take care that the jokes have some premise, some reason. The UnNews piece saying the American government believes the VTech killer was a Muslim Arab of course used that to lampoon Western profiling of Arabs as a race of killers. The satire had a moral point.
I find "jokes" that are vicious for no particular reason unpleasant. For instance, I don't much like articles that cast public figures as rapists and/or paedos for no particular reason. These articles have no point except to be nasty. Similarly, I think I would object to an article that just made mean jokes about the VTech massacre. I think such an article would be abuse, not satire. It might be comedy, but to me it would be repugnant and I doubt I would read much of it.
Mel Brooks was funny, I think, because he wrote with a conscience. "Springtime for Hitler" served the purpose of lampooning exactly what we're talking about: entertainment with no conscience. Only a moral idiot would write a musical celebrating the innocence and hope of Hitler. Brooks made the premise screamingly funny by making his amoral con men utter buffoons.
These are just the lazy thoughts of an lazy, lazy man, of course. ----OEJ 23:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- All of the above endorsed and signed. --:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Me too. Like the use of "nigger" in Blazing Saddles was skewering the user of the world, not the usee. The "beans" bit, meanwhile, was just stupid. I'm sorry, but it's true. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
CartoonDiablo is no Mel Brooks, at least Mel Brooks tried to be funny without supporting the Nazis, he made them into a parody of themselves and they looked like buffoons. CartoonDiablo is not trying to make Cho look like a clown and actually did a cheer leading cheer for him. When the UnNews:US Democrats give Entire World to Terrorists was made it was very offensive but it was fixed by me and others to make the Democrats look like buffoons and give the whole world away to the terrorists because they thought they had their rights violated. The terrorists were lampooned by the Bugs Bunny Hassan cartoon in order to make them look like Buffoons as well. Even a quote by George W. Bush was changed to make him look like a buffoon. Now some n00bs took offense to it and one of them submitted it to VFD, but the majority decided to keep the article because it was funny. I admit the article is not perfect, but it is an example on how to take current events and try to make them funny. The whole bill proposed by Democrats is mocked because it is a bill without conscience that sort of rewards Islamic Terrorists who are without conscience as well by making deep cuts into the military budget to make it harder to fight the terrorists. It was exaggerated into a surrender bill, and it made it funny. We just cleaned up the cuss words, rewrote some offensive parts, and made buffoons out of most of the people involved in it. I suppose the same thing could have been done with the VT shootings by making Cho a buffoon in some way, instead of having his own cheer leading section, or saying he had Islamic ties. The irony was that he wrote "Ismael Ax" on his arm and on the package he sent NBC, which sort of has an Islamic meaning in that Ismael, son of Abraham, who went on to bring about the Arabic civilization, used an Ax to destroy idols in a temple but left one alone. I mean maybe that could have been used to show possible ties to Islam, and then the article might have made a bit more sense. But the trick is in writing it to make Cho look like a buffoon, instead of having his own cheer leading section or trying to make him look like a hero or martyr. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia You Truley Are A Bunch of Hypocrites
UnNews:Virginia Tech gunman was "Probably Muslim" say authorities
nuff said, the guy who made this should be the one who gets banned. --
CartoonDiablo
- Nope. Not 'nuff said. That's a satirical look at western islamophobia. I love you like a brother, man, but the comment on IRC was the act of a jackass. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Modus and I seem to be in complete agreement. The UnNews article is satire, and satire has a point. Pointlessly offensive comments are different. Slapstick can be pointless, but funny; and it is funniest when it is self-mocking because there is no guilt involved if the author invites you to laugh at him along with him. However, your complaint has sparked an interesting discussion. That should be taken into the balance, I think. ----OEJ 23:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I thought you were the one who wrote that. It has been updated since I last read it. You should know that it is trying to make Cho a buffoon by showing a picture of Mickey Rooney. It needs more to it to make it funnier like the "Ismael Ax" reference. Maybe compare Cho to a typical Islamic Terrorist and showing how both of them are radical ideologists who claimed to be a martyr because they took out lives along with their own, and make a reference to God or Allah saying "I do not even know these people. Quit using my name as an excuse for mass murder." Then say that the Islamic Terrorists have offshored jobs to South Koreans like Cho now, because most of the Islamic Terrorists have fallen victim to natural selection and won Darwin Awards. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely even if we all agree that we should not allow articles on Uncyclopedia mocking the Virginia Tech massacre which is a very recent event, it does not explain or justify why that article's talk page had to be locked. There's a fine line between censorship borne out of consideration for the feelings of others and completely unacceptable ways of silencing people the admins do not happen to agree with. Ethereal 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Um, the talkpage of WHAT is protected?--<<
>> 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The talkpage of the Virginia Tech Massacre article is protected: [1]. Why should we silence people on the talk pages just because we disagree with them? Isn't locking the article enough? Ethereal 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. I didn't know about that. It's fixed now.--<<
>> 16:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for unprotecting the talk page. I'm sure we would all appreciate our freedom of speech. On another note, it appears as though Savethemooses might have lost a loved one in the VTech massacre, given his emotional outbursts on this matter. Ethereal 12:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- The reason I was so defensive about this issue is I saw just how mean, offensive, insensitive and unnecessary the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on the massacre was and did NOT want Uncyclopedia to be lumped into the same shitpile. There was no reason to have an article poking fun at the tragedy itself, especially so soon after it happened. I thought it would be better to not try to be "funny" about it and instead do something productive. I would not be against unlocking it soon, under the condition that the humor does not mock the dead or the tragedy itself. It could focus on the media sensationalizing the matter, trying to pin blame on everything from gun control to movies to video games. But shit like "Let's celebrate this joyous occasion!" is NOT going to fly, primarily because it's NOT FUNNY. The aforementioned UnNews article is a good example: instead being a made a mockery, the tragedy is a premise to poke at Islamophobia. I want Uncyclopedia to be a place that people can go to for a good laugh, and if not letting stuff like the VT Massacre be editable loses a few demented jerks, so be it. That's all I have to say about that. --
» Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Some words of wisdom from a person who should knoe bettar
Look, people live, people die, an' sometimes as a result of other people's madness. Still other people make fun of it. In the long run, we are all dead so why bother ? There is no god, there certainly is no heaven, when you blow out your last breath that's it for you, no happy returnings, all people you love will betray you at one point in time or other, accidents happen, and why not just shrug and accept these facts ? It would make my life so much easier if you would. -- di Mario 20:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- They just don't want to get bad press/publicity. --Hrodulf 20:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Avoiding bad press means you take yourself seriously. My point is: don't. You are wiven stardust, and nothing you can do will change that fact - so better accept it, boyo -- di Mario 21:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- You can take yourself seriously and still want to avoid destructive controversy. Look what John Lennon saying the Beatles were more popular than Jesus did to the Beatles; it ended their touring career. Look at what the stuff Imus said did to his career. All we need is for one person to sink their teeth into us for making fun of the VT massacre and it could do immense damage to this website. The fact that you can't see that leads me to conclude you're either clueless about public relations, or you don't care what happens to this website, or both. Or neither. Whatever. --Hrodulf 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, clueless is clearly a state I find myself a large percentage of my waking time in, I'll grant you that. On the other hand, I do care about the uncyc community. I want this to be a strong, and proud, and willful community that stands righteous up and slaps the bastards bang in the kisser whenever they start bastarding. If you adopt the nihilistic position that everything is pointless (including you yourself), it makes it much harder for the bastards to attack you. They rant and rave, you just do your mr Teflon thingy and shrug it off. -- di Mario 15:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with whether it's right to hold off on making fun of Virginia Tech? Don't make this something it isn't. I don't think everything is pointless, I just don't think we need any bad press by mocking this particular situation. If you don't like that, that's fine. I just think it doesn't matter to discuss it since it won't change the admins' minds on the subject. If you want to write that article, do it on a subpage to your userpage and move it to the main space when eventually the ban on creating this article is lifted. There, is that really so bad? --Hrodulf 21:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sad Day
It is truly a sad time when Uncyclopedia can't find something decently funny to say about something like VT, and instead start to cringe and whimper, even to the extent of banning people. A mass murder in a place when weapons are given away free with petrol is not a surprise, and neither is it any more tragic than any number of the horrible things that happen around the world blah blah blah, and things in the past that Uncyc gleefully makes fun of. The only thing that is different is that it happened to college students, and suddenly a great number of people here can identify with it. But to suddenly lose any perspective/subtlety/humour and find nothing, nothing for the page - even along the lines of an attack on the massive media whirlpool that surrounded the shootings, is piss poor frankly and you should all hang your heads. Something funny should have gone straight into that page and then none of this locking and dishwater support group toss would have occurred.
22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, each have to mourn their own dead or else no article about our pretty human history could be made. Cultural relativism is the last spike in the coffin of western civilization, the only being oh-so-cautious about the others' feelings. And, honestly, the Iraqi are the ones killing each other, not the oil-greedy-oh-so-imperalistic-Americans. By the way, in my own subculture (I write "sub" because it's just a small hula-hula from the mainstrain west) dark comedy jokes use to appear about 45 minutes after some tragedy occurs. --:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I feel it is perfectly fair not to expect those who have been directly bereaved to contribute to articles on Uncyclopedia.
23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I myself feel VTech as a very distant event. But I'm defending the right of Anglo-Saxon people to care about their own matters. You wouldn't expect anything different from Russian "uncyclopedia" right after the Beslan massacre (of course, preserved the proportions). --:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not so much Anglo-Saxons, it's always going to be the way that people give more credence to things that can relate to. It's more the fact that a community of people whose entire reason for existence is the creation of satirical material on all subjects suddenly decide to post up a donation banner instead when something 'too close to home' happens. It should be insta-huffed and redirected to V-Tech where a proper attempt is at least being made.
23:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It's an even sadder day when someone is too dense, or lacks the human emotion to properly respond to a fairly tragic event. Yes, people die every day. Yes, shit like this has happened before. But we have a shred of human decency here. Just because we poke fun at everything eventually, doesn't mean we need to do so right away. So far, we've ripped on the general anti-Islam sentiment in the US. I'd be surprised if the rabid media frenzy didn't get some coverage as well. But we have enough sensitivity not to totally defame the event itself, soon after it happened.
If you lack the basic human decency to appreciate our tact and responsible view of what is acceptable, then get the fuck off this site. In fact, I'll help you.
Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 05/5 00:09
- I remember 9/11. I had a girlfriend back then who shared the very stupid and indeed depressingly widespread anti-Americanism of most of my countryfellows. She said it was a "punch in the face of USA". I was more concerned about 3,000 (back then, people were talking about 20,000) innocents being killed by a force that, no matter how irrationally radical-leftist you can be, is just the horror incarnate and would kill you as well if it had the chance. Hate is a primitive feeling and everything done in its name is just to be loathed. --!] 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- This debate is pointless, since it won't result in the page being unprotected. That's not to say I'm trying to silence anybody, I'm not, but maybe you have better things to do with your time here than argue over this settled point, like being funny or voting or putting crap on vfd or qvfd. I mean, this isn't a debate site, right? Right. This argument has spilled over at least two pges now, Talk:Virginia Tech Massacre and this one, and has accomplished nothing. Adding to this page, or starting a new forum post on this, will continue to accomplish nothing. --Hrodulf 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- We have people in the USA who feel as your girlfriend did that it was a punch in the face of the USA who deserved it. I am not one of them and I am concerned about the 3000 people who died and their families. Sure I can joke about it, and doing so helps me take the string out of it. I think there are countless articles here making fun of the USA, more than make fun of the terrorists who did the 911 attacks. Do I complain that my nation is make fun of, especially our leaders and our lifestyles? Nope, I just laugh along with the rest of the world because I can take a joke. Nobody deserves deaths like 911 and the VTech shootings or even the Beslan massacre that the average USAian does not know about. Now the problem as I see it, is that we are arguing over where to draw the line to make fun of something. I mean we joke about the Holocaust, WWI and WWII, countless wars, and all sorts of things. At what point do we draw the line, and say no farther than this? If we draw the line at VTech, then those Columbine jokes have to go, as well 911 and the Holocaust. The name Uncyclopedia means we are a funny encyclopedia, and if it is worthy to be put into an encyclopedia then it should go into Uncyclopedia to be made fun of. At what part do we start censoring local or global events? At what part do we say a topic or issue is off-limits? Will we get rid of Aspergers Syndrome, at what point do people like Slashy start to make sense? Because that is the way we are going, deciding that topics or issues are off topic and we cannot have an article about them any more. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I can bet no one has done an instant joke on the Asian tsunami of 2005. But if it was done... Well we were back in 2005. --!] 04:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just because no one has written an article on Asian tsunami tragedy clearly does not entail that detractors of Uncyclopedia's admin policy on protecting the Vtech massacre article would find it distasteful the same way you find our attempts to make VTech funny in bad taste. I myself wouldn't want the admins to be portrayed in a negative light by the media or external visitors to this site, but at the same time, the least that we may do is to entertain at least some form of humour, along with a disclaimer for the admins that such gallows humour is not expressive of the entire Uncyclopedian community. Perhaps add a link to another page satirising the incident on the Vtech massacre page, with the warning that reading the (extremely inconsiderate) article means that you agree not to hold the admins accountable for any content on the linked page. In any case, we shouldn't have gone so far as to ban others when they are clearly not violating any rules of Uncyclopedia. Ethereal 07:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I find the "truly a sad time" hypothesis invalid. Someone will find something funny about VTech -- gallows humour, black comedy, premise-turning satire, whatever. What's crap, and should be recognized as crap, and deleted as crap, and punished as crap, is crap writing about VTech. That's the point: it's not funny to for someone to write any vicious and stupid thing that floats to the top of his head. Bah. ----OEJ 18:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think you miss the entire point of this discussion. The argument is over whether or not we should allow articles mocking aspects of the Vtech massacre; one poking fun at the incident. It is not over whether we think "unfunny" articles should be huffed. Clearly they should, and if you look at the Virginia Tech Massacre article, you'll see it is protected. Which means admins won't even tolerate any attempts to satirise the situation, and NOT because any such attempts would be unfunny. If it's malicious and unfunny, ie. pointless ranting with zero humour involved, of course you'll find widespread, unanimous consensus to re-write, if not outright delete the article.Ethereal 02:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- ...wich bring us back to our previous discussion. We don't have any rules regarding dark humor, be if it shocks without being funny, it's even worse than a regular bad article. We currently don't have an article on Beslan. I doubt it was never created, but probably deleted over and over. --!] 18:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Even if that's true, I'm fine with it. And that's because the admins haven't done to the articles on Beslan/Asian Tsunami tragedy/insert-tragedy-here what they've done to Vtech; namely protecting it and disallowing any articles which mock the incident. I don't mind if stupid, senseless, unfunny articles get huffed, but in this case it is the suppression of article creation itself which it is intolerable in my view. Ethereal 02:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well to be honest we missed those, but we did cover Hurricane Katrina in a timely manner. For those who find the VTech article offensive, do you find the Katrina article offensive because more people died in Katrina and the government failed to rescue them or help them out until it was too late. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody's addressing the issue that if we make fun of VT right now, it makes us look really bad. --Hrodulf 17:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why? How is making fun of VT right now any different of making fun of VT a week later or a month? How is that different from making fun of Hurricane Katrina or other events in which a lot of people died? I mean we make articles making fun of the Iraq War, and a lot of people get shot and blown up in that, but it doesn't stop us from making fun of it right away. Isn't the Iraq War bloodier than VT and lasting longer? You want us to remove all Iraq War articles? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Virginia Tech is different because the victims were not expected to be targets of violence. Like it or not, when someone is killed who wasn't expected to be at risk for it, it creates a bigger emotional response in the public. And it's a valid decision to make not to want to appear to be making light of this particular situation. It doesn't make complete sense but that's because people don't make sense. And like I said before, this is a pointless discussion anyway. --Hrodulf 01:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody expects to be targets of violence. Nobody expects hurricanes to destroy their town either. Things happen. While you cannot prevent a hurricane, you can prevent a person from going on a shooting rampage if you notice warning signs. The college knew about the warning signs but did nothing about them and allowed Cho to continue to be a student at their college. They ignored the professor's concerns about Cho, they ignored the two stalking reports, they ignored that a court found Cho to be a danger to himself and to others. Before Cho got that way, he was bullied since high school and developed an anti-social personality that eventually developed into him becoming a sociopath. Him being bullied does not excuse what he did, there is no valid reason to do what he did. I wonder how many other people like Cho are out there, being bullied until finally they no longer make any sense and snap. I never could figure out people in general, they never seem to make sense to me. They'll joke about one thing, but something like it they refuse to joke about. One thing has an emotional response, while something like it does not have an emotional response. I was bullied in grade school, through junior high and high school, and college as well, but I never turned into a killer. Instead I developed a sense of humor, but a dry and dark sense of humor. I guess instead of going insane, I learned to joke around. I do not believe in doing acts of violence like Cho did. I developed my skills with computers while everyone else was developing their social skills. I never got invited to parties, instead I studied at a library or worked on a computer at home or at a computer store. So I guess I have a hard time figuring out what I can and cannot joke about. I was bullied at work, until I got too sick to work and ended up on disability. I write in Uncyclopedia to get things out of my system in a positive way, as humor. I used to write funny things on forums and CMS sites, but nobody really got my humor until I wrote on here. All I want to know is where to draw the line on what not to make fun of. Note that I didn't write anything about Cho of the VTech shootings. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Making fun of this topic right now would be bad for the project. Enough said. Like I noted, it isn't rational. It's just how things are. --Hrodulf 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well as long as the admins say not to make said article, it is a good enough reason for me. Even if it does not make any rational sense. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yet another section, to indicate my arrogant belief that what I have to say is more profound than other people's comments
The Virginia Tech shooting was a tragic, disturbing event. As such, it has generated media hype, controversy, high tensions, sick jokes, reactions to sick jokes, and, on Uncyclopedia, a disagreement over what is acceptable as humor and what isn't. These issues, quite frankly, are unavoidable, so it is better if we try to resolve the issue through compromise rather than yammering at each other. My argument will follow in some sort of organization.
"Uncyclopedia has many offensive articles, why should this be considered sacred?" It should be dealt with carefully, and everyone should recognize that there will be some disagreement over what to do no matter what. They say arguing couples should never go to bed angry with each other, and Uncyc should make sure that it never goes to bed with crap writing still on the site. We should all adopt the One-Eyed Jack philosophy of controversial humor, which states, more or less (semi-paraphrased from above): "Never mind controversy, crap writing is still crap writing." What truly bothers me is when people make a sick/stupid joke about a touchy subject, and then accuse everyone who doesn't like it of being hypersensitive prudes. Freedom of expression should never be used as a defense for crappy writing. Oh, and I don't much care for hypersensitive prudes either (just to balance it out).
"A tragedy is a tragedy, so why does the amount of time since it happened matter?" Because people have short memories. They just do, and no amount of self-righteous justification and/or flamewarring can change that. If the joke makes enough people angry that it has to be justified multiple times, then the joke probably wasn't any good. Some people were laughing at the VTech incident before there was even a joke because they're mentally diseased (no, I will not develop that point, Mr. "Define mentally diseased"), and some people will scour the internet for years, writing rude things to absolutely everybody who would dare speak lightly about the incident. But in between, there's everybody else, and most of us believe that there is a requisite time for being solemn when something this dramatic has occurred, and even after that time has passed, any jokes about it should at least be witty.
"I think Americans are just selfish people who will laugh at any tragedy unless it involved the death of Americans." Don't be foolish. Firstly, that isn't necessarily true. Secondly, it doesn't make a bad joke about the murder of 32 people by a maligned sicko any better. Ad hominem is a lousy argument.
"Isn't this question-and-answer argument getting rather long and boring?" No, absolutely n-... actually, yeah. That's all I have to say. My apologies for adding to an already overgrown discussion. -:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- As to the amount of time needed before making jokes, ironically it will probably be at least until this forum topic stops getting bumped... --Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 06:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all, let me begin by belaboring the obvious by reminding everyone who still possess the patience to have read this far down this discussion page that it is NOT whether we think unfunny crap should be deleted that is the issue here. No one, not even CartoonDiablo, I dare say, would vote against huffing a senseless, humourless article which mocks itself more than the Vtech shootings by mere virtue of its worthless content than by the inherent subject of its content, on VFH. This was NEVER the issue to begin with, and it seems like supporters on the ban, no, censorship on the VTech massacre article are really much more interested in demolishing helpless strawmen by claiming that the other party are really more interested in sustaining an unfunny article on the shootings. To spare others the horrors of me expressing so blatantly obvious a banality, it suffices for us to note that clearly since NO articles satirising or parodying the Vtech shootings are allowed to exist because of the ban, the ridiculous argument that WE are arguing that crappy articles on the shootings should be allowed to exist is non sequitur. And don't even get me started on whether we are hypersensitive prudes.
At the same time, we also recognise that the admins would be cast in a bad light should they appear tolerate such articles, could we not add a disclaimer to any future potential article on the shootings that visitors are warned of tasteless humour should they choose to proceed. I agree that a mere template isn't enough, so I suppose a better idea would be create the article as though it were archived as a talk page discussion under the same name. You get what I'm trying to put across right? I don't know much about wiki software. Ethereal 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out again that anyone who wants to can work up a Vtech article as a subpage to their userpage for later inclusion into a mainspace article when it is permitted. --Hrodulf 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- You realise that even while it is still possible to do so, such a user sub-page would essentially lack the advantages of Wikiparticipation by other editors and visitors to the site. How can we expect such pages to be funny enough if visitors to the site don't know about their existence and hence unable to contribute? Why was Uncyclopedia even a Wiki site in the first place? Ethereal 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Many very funny articles, including featured ones, are the work of a single author. That's due to the individual nature of inspiration, prose voice, and thematic vision. It's just the way writing is -- among the creators of great literature only Marcel Proust was a committee (specifically, the Le Comité pour Molester des Poissons, a group of 23 men, 14 women, and 8 dogs). I recently reviewed a group-grope on India which graphically demonstrates that many cooks often screw the stew. Anyways. At some point someone -- probably working alone in a psychotherapeutic fit of personal inspiration -- will write a funny article about VTech. I don't know the details of the subject ban, but it would presumably be possible to write an article called "Ole Virginie Massacre" or "The V8 Tech Incident" or whatever. The article best be damn' good, though, to avoid huffination and subsequent bannorization. Hrolduf is most likely right, the Inspired One Yet To Come should create it in a namespace first and maybe get the blessing of The Unholy Powers before going
pubicpublic with it. Anyway. The original discussion, we recall, was about being banned from the forum for making bad jokes about VTech; one salient point, therefore, is that if you're going to satirize touchy subjects 'twere best done well. It's not a sad day for Uncyc when a subject is deemed sensitive enough to deserve special sanctions -- look at Romania, which although not a tragedy on the scale of VTech nevertheless gets special treatment. 53 users got the ax over Romania, and hardly anybody massacred anybody there. Hardly anybody! Some subjects get special treatment, and VTech is one of them. C'est la merde, as they say in France. I agree that this topic has become an overgrown thicket of obfuscation; I just wanted to add another layer of foetid, mosquito-infested shrubbery to the spreading disaster before it reaches critical mass and collapses into a black hole. ----OEJ 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- And even if you are completely right on this, how exactly is this relevant to whether the ban on VTech massacre article is justified? We might as well huff and and protect all articles on other tragedies, and tell all Uncyclopedian users to create articles in their user subpages should they want to satirise the situation. Where and how do you draw the line without being a hypocrite on this? Ethereal 02:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's relevant because it is. The line is drawn, more or less arbitrarily, by a small group of people, and I hope to the Great Smelly Trout of Heaven that this discussion will not involve coming up with a set of rules about justifying controversial articles to ensure fairness, blah blah blah. Either someone will write a good article about the VTech incident, or else it will not happen. Now that we've mashed the Grapes of Controversy into a fine pulp and filtered the juices, it would be better for everyone if we just put the Cork of Silence into the Bottle of Forgetfulness, and let it ferment until someone digs it up again after a while and opens it after its alcohol content is high enough to get everyone seriously wasted. If we just let it sit around while arguing over whether or not to drink it while it's still grape juice, it will begin to smell like the Vinegar of Shitty Jokes and we'll be pissed about such a crappy metaphor being used to describe something very abstract and complex. -:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I draw the line here:
-Han Solo (High Gen. Grue) Comlink Grueslayer
- /me builds sandcastle in HGG's sand. --Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 07:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)