Because every university’s resources are limited, an educational institution must routinely make decisions concerning the use of the time and space that is available for extracurricular activities. In my judgment, it is both necessary and appropriate for those decisions to evaluate the content of a proposed student activity. I should think it obvious, for example, that if two groups of 25 students requested the use of a room at a particular time—one to view Mickey Mouse cartoons and the other to rehearse an amateur performance of Hamlet—the First Amendment would not require that the room he reserved for the group that submitted its application first. Nor do I see why a university should have to establish a “compelling state interest” to defend its decision to permit one group to use the facility and not the other. In my opinion, a university should be allowed to decide for itself whether a program that illuminates the genius of Walt Disney should be given precedence over one that may duplicate material adequately covered in the classroom.
--Supreme Court Justice Stevens, WIDMAR v. VINCENT, concurring opinion.
Some people believe that humor belongs even in serious things, like supreme court legal opinions. Some people believe there is value in cartoons.
I have nothing against humor. In fact, if you look at my reply to OP, you’ll see I even have a joke in there. The point I was making is that your post didn’t have any substance aside from humor.
1) I reject the implication that there is no amount of humor that could justify a comment regardless of its other substance (given its length and the context). I accept for consideration the criticism that my comment wasn’t funny enough, but not that it was categorically wrong to have a comment that is nothing but humorous.
2) To say that the comment had no substance aside from humor is a fine enough thing to say, because and only because the reader will interpret it as meaning that you didn’t see any other substance. It is a fine enough thing to say if one thinks the probability of other substance is sufficiently low...but how close to zero did you think it was? “World domination” really did make me think of Pinky and the Brain, FWIW.
3) The value of a comment with no substance aside from humor here was to somewhat mitigate what I saw as an impending avalanche of critical comments and downvotes.
--Supreme Court Justice Stevens, WIDMAR v. VINCENT, concurring opinion.
Some people believe that humor belongs even in serious things, like supreme court legal opinions. Some people believe there is value in cartoons.
I have nothing against humor. In fact, if you look at my reply to OP, you’ll see I even have a joke in there. The point I was making is that your post didn’t have any substance aside from humor.
1) I reject the implication that there is no amount of humor that could justify a comment regardless of its other substance (given its length and the context). I accept for consideration the criticism that my comment wasn’t funny enough, but not that it was categorically wrong to have a comment that is nothing but humorous.
2) To say that the comment had no substance aside from humor is a fine enough thing to say, because and only because the reader will interpret it as meaning that you didn’t see any other substance. It is a fine enough thing to say if one thinks the probability of other substance is sufficiently low...but how close to zero did you think it was? “World domination” really did make me think of Pinky and the Brain, FWIW.
3) The value of a comment with no substance aside from humor here was to somewhat mitigate what I saw as an impending avalanche of critical comments and downvotes.
Heh, I appreciate the mitigation.