I’m rather fond of Benign Violation Theory, as interpreted by Robin Hanson. Basically, funny things are those that benefit people you’re sympathetic with (in particular, raising their social status) by violating existing social norms.
I find this doubtful. I’ve attended a speech by Ann Coulter, and found some of her lines legitimately funny despite the fact that they were attacks on the status of groups I’m sympathetic to. This doesn’t just fail to fit the model, it seems flat out contradictory of it.
I don’t contest that, but they’re being violated to lower the status of groups I’m sympathetic to, rather than raising it. It’s not a benign violation.
Do you agree with the arguments, or are you sympathetic to people who advance those arguments? If so, you identify with the subgroup that attacks the norms, so it feels beneficial to you (no matter whether it actually is).
I find this doubtful. I’ve attended a speech by Ann Coulter, and found some of her lines legitimately funny despite the fact that they were attacks on the status of groups I’m sympathetic to. This doesn’t just fail to fit the model, it seems flat out contradictory of it.
The norms that are thus violated are also norms of your in-group, otherwise they wouldn’t be considered norms.
I don’t contest that, but they’re being violated to lower the status of groups I’m sympathetic to, rather than raising it. It’s not a benign violation.
Do you agree with the arguments, or are you sympathetic to people who advance those arguments? If so, you identify with the subgroup that attacks the norms, so it feels beneficial to you (no matter whether it actually is).
No to both cases, but I still found them funny.