/lit/ - Literature

>movement
>our
>we

>>19335176
I'm not arrogant enough to think that I'm the only one in this movement and I have met a few brothers here already so it's appropriate I think.
If this does not apply to you, however, maybe don't reply? or at the very least engage thoughtfully with the movement and try to learn; or just have something, anything, meaningful to say! Christ...

Why should I be against laughing? I love comedy.

"Comedy" is simply the ZOG regime's preferred liturgy

>>19335007
Give me a quick rundown on your movement.

>>19335362
We seek a world without laughter, without comedy, humourless and content. (The Agelastian vision)
We seek to revive the anti-laughter tradition of philosophers such as Plato, Epictetus. Descartes, and Hobbes and to add to it, to better address the effects of comedy in our time.
We recognise that laughter warps reality and strains society.
We recognise that jocularity warps communication and undermines sincerity.
We recognise that humour is pervasive in society and held, almost, as sacred (the cult of comedy).
We recognise that laughter is not necessary for a good and happy life but is ultimately antithetical to those ends.
We recognise that the grotesqueness of laughter
etc. etc.
I have written about my positions and thoughts on Agelastianism before but I have not published anything until now.
I wish I could collect all me writings in one place but I only have access to other (live) thread and an archived one which isn't even very good (because it was my first).
Still, I think it should be obvious to you now just what we stand for now.
I hope we've piqued your interest because there shall be more to come.

bump.

touch grass

>>19336509
???
Please tell me what this phrase means. I think I have seen it used as an invective before but I don't think I quite understand it yet.
Is it a sexual metaphor?

>>19335461
lol ur gay

>>19335309
Read my articles.
To tell you the truth, I feel very lonely and tired having to write all these long posts myself but I hear my calling and I know it's something I must do for the greater good.

>>19336672
Is this the best response your laughter-addled brain could come up with? Idiot.

>>19336690
STOP ROFLING RIGHT NOW IM SUPER SERIOUS, IT'S LE BAD

>>19336677
Are you on Substack?

>>19336727
No but perhaps I should write articles there.
>>19336726
Your mind has been so deranged by laughter that you cannot help but reduce yourself to blithering idiocy.
> bbbboooerp;pps;pv s;pf ksf msg loms lomf m sf n hahahah HAHA AHAHAHAHAH AH AHA AH HAHAH AHA AH
What does any of it mean? Will people look back on this day and see what you have done as good? or will they be confused and perhaps even ashamed?

>>19335007

>>19336651
It means go outside.

>>19336796
Is this supposed to be funny because his lack of progress is pitiful? well I think it is admirable. Any Englishman ought to know how to say please so it can only be uplifting to see a foreigner learn to do the same. He seems to have acclimated well to polite society, so what then is there to laugh about this? Is it funny because the cost is absurd? Well then find a teacher who charges better rates and/or teaches better, it can't be that difficult. Really it seems like this is his own fault to me.
>>19336800
Is this the tickling thing that you had in mind? Seems a bit pornographic to me now that I've actually seen it to be quite honest.
I suppose then, that you are actually just a tickling fetishist rather than someone sincere?

>>19336800
Sauce, I'm boutta squander my NNN streak

>>19336926
Ridiculous, how does he know whether or not I do or do not regularly go outside? I do (I actually walked through the country side today) but he wouldn't know either way. Silly accusation seeing as irreverence grows with time spend indoors, not seriousness.

>>19335007
>we
Anon, far as I've seen no one else is joining your crusade. Glad to hear that you're making progress.

>>19335007
op

>>19335007
Read the Bible.

>>19335007
lol

Someone post a tldr of what OP said.

>>19335461
>We recognise that laughter warps reality and strains society.
>We recognise that jocularity warps communication and undermines sincerity.
>We recognise that humour is pervasive in society and held, almost, as sacred (the cult of comedy).
>We recognise that laughter is not necessary for a good and happy life but is ultimately antithetical to those ends.
>We recognise that the grotesqueness of laughter
Why?

>>19337687
...because... it just is okay!!

>>19335461
kinda support just because i'm tired of basic bitches trying to write "funny" books and every book on the market having to be "funny." theyre cringe and tedious.

i'm with the sincerity movement though. no artifice, no sarcasm used as an emotional crutch to distance the writer from having to talk about anything that might upset him and accidentally jostle any real note of the human condition out of his stifled little head.

either way, down with comedy.

So, it's just about not laughing?

>>19336941
>Is this the tickling thing that you had in mind? Seems a bit pornographic to me now that I've actually seen it to be quite honest.
Sorry, it was a webm posted in another thread. It is difficult to find a good example, this webm was at least visceral — it made me shiver. I might try to find some good descriptions from people who have suffered genuine torture tickling

>>19336952
https://www.reddit.com/user/SpiffyTickler/

>>19337687
What do you mean why? We just recognise that humour is evil. Do you mean how do we know?
Humour by it's very nature is insincere, which makes language ambiguous; it is either a celebration of absurdity or hysterical schadenfreude. It is illogical and perverse. What do you not get?

Why do I feel like this is brilliant satire?

>>19337578
I've seen at least one other anon express my views, and eloquently so I might add. Here is the exchange between that anon and myself.

> Anon: Laughter is unconscious communication and sympathy. It is important to be conscious of things, a man will also tell you all about himself if you communicate earnestly and without laughter. It is important, to me, to think of the price of laughter.

> Me: Supremely insightful; I, however, do not take laughter to be sympathetic.
> [quoting Hobbes] Laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly.
> Derision cannot be sympathy.

> I mean sympathy in the way of things responding in like. Not an emotional intelligence thing. That is a good quote, and I believe that to play a role. Often humor, if not arising from some weird/absurd situation or schadenfreude, is a veiled expression of an inner disturbance causing a dissonance in a person, and it being met with laughter is a reaction to the unexpected absurdity, to resolve this dissonance. It usually appeals to a similar disturbance causing distress in the laughing party. There is laughter out of mockery, laughter out of cruelty, laughter out of pain, laughter out of shock, laughter out of madness, laughter out of sadness, laughter out of power, laughter out of pride, laughter out of beauty, laughter out of awe. It is all born of the unexpected, confusing, hard to process, or overwhelming, whether in ourselves or external circumstance. It’s function is to resolve dissonance, it is a consonance. Laughing is an unconscious response to many things, therefore, if your desire is exclusively to “know”, as in be “conscious” and analyze yourself+others, and only that, laughter is probably a detriment. I think it is a bit frivolous, and shameful. To laugh or not to laugh is up to you, I believe there is a psychological upper hand given to you if you withhold the laughter people beg for, but give them the other things they desire in interaction. Everything unfolding or emerging is like a piece of music, whatever that they may mean to you, I don’t want to type anymore.

> Ahh, I see. Again, you have been very insightful, hitting upon some points that I have missed and expressing ideas that I have had difficultly formulating, admirably well.
> I truly appreciate both of your posts and think, I shall save both to draw upon, if I may.
> Thank you anon.

Source: >>/lit/thread/S19316177

There are other people too who mentioned being interested, like the OP in that thread, but the anon that I quoted was the most memorable I think.

>>19338676
It's about ending laughter, yes.

I found some tickle torture testimonies

https://www.quora.com/How-can-tickling-be-used-as-torture/answers/105669935

>>19335461
I can see some interesting ideas in there but you might want to rebrand it to sound less schizo-tier. Laughter=bad is a statement most people are not going to agree with on an instinctual level.

>>19340753
> Laughter=bad is a statement most people are not going to agree with on an instinctual level.
How the fuck are they supposed to rebrand that? That's literally what they believe in.

>>19335461
>>19340753
Also isn't this just a less comprehensive version of stoicism?

>>19340787
Instead of laugher=bad, maybe to something more palatable to the average person, like laughter is comparable to drugs/alcohol or sex in that it has its place and can be partaken of in moderation.

You're more likely to get people to listen to you if instead of saying "stop laughing at all" you just say "stop laughing so much".

>>19340825
> Also isn't this just a less comprehensive version of stoicism?
Seems like a one issue sort of philosophy, which stoicism might align with, but I don't think that's the point.
> You're more likely to get people to listen to you if instead of saying "stop laughing at all" you just say "stop laughing so much".
Seems like just a more moderate version of "Agelastianism". I guess it could work and if their smart enough they'll probably take that bent.

>>19335007

>>19341024
It's like three paragraphs you fucking illiterate.

>>19340468
wtf...

Imagine studying philosophy just to eternalize your NPC status. Materialist cope at the immaterial.
You completely forgot to read the literary works of history and just focused purely on dry philosophy and then abused it for your own cope in an completely NPC way. We are tending towards an age that symbolizes the death of idioms, poems, dramas, comedies, etc. we need more not less. Just because you have low cognitive abilities it doesn’t make it the world’s problem. Read Dante’s comedies.
Read Ovid, read Virgil, read homer, read Shakespeare, etc.
You lack the idea of what being human is, and you refuse to tend towards it because you can’t quantify it in a simple, dry, explicit way. You failed the Turing test. You can’t even reconstruct the human condition within the expression of yourself. That makes you a quintessential NPC. Your writing is shit btw, that’s what happens when you read dry trash of regards pretending what they say matters beyond Socrates.
>tiktok
And now it is forever cemented that you are a full blown cringetard.

Inshallah, brother. I laughed but mirthlessly.

>>19341227
Pure seethe.
>Materialist cope at the immaterial.
What does this even mean? Laughing=Bad is a materialist position now? I thought it was established that Plato, et. al. believed that laughing should be minimized and that laughing is inherently cruel or whatever. I don't think they were materialists. (maybe Hobbes, out of everyone mentioned was though.)
>You completely forgot to read the literary works of history and just focused purely on dry philosophy
Probably true but OP seems so humorless that I doubt that would have done him any good anyway.
>You lack the idea of what being human is, and you refuse to tend towards it because you can’t quantify it in a simple, dry, explicit way. You failed the Turing test. You can’t even reconstruct the human condition within the expression of yourself. That makes you a quintessential NPC.
This reads like philosophylet cope tbqh. I honestly don't see how OP "failed the Turing test". >>tiktok
>And now it is forever cemented that you are a full blown cringetard.
OP recognizes the times and sincerely wants to spread his views. Anyone who cares would too.

>>19335007
People who have no humor and never laugh about anything(especially themselves) are fucking creepy. I can barely call you human. Very few animals do something that even resembles laughter.
>Indoctrinated into the cult of comedy
You just have no humor. It's like a blind person telling me there is "a cult of colors"

>>19336941
>is it this? is it that?
Finger pointing at the moon

>>19339794
getting some really good laughs itt desu

>>19340825
he won't he's an extremist
>I know the whole truth, it's the worlds fault for not following suit !!!!1!1!!

The original thread OP made and got BTFOd in btw. LMAO what a fucking fag.
>>>/lit/thread/S18887623

>>19335007
>>19341602
OP's ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to his newsletter

>>19335007
you are so pathetic that I actually pity you.
take your meds

>>19335007
Anon I think you are ahead of the times. I came to the same conclusion: the only way to save the world is to kill all irony. Laughter is a powerful weapon against the tyrants but it's so destructive it cannot be allowed at all. Laughter trivializes everything and when everything is trivial, all that is left is nihilistic hedonism. By laughter here I mean a mocking laughter, the comedic laughter, not laughter as the expression of joy. It's great to laugh when you're playing with your cat or when you're at the beach and you enjoy having a splash.

>>19341910
exactly, I don't know why people laugh when I say that I am the 8th avatar of Lord Krishna, here to save puny humans from suffering by asking them to kill themselves.
DEATH TO COMEDY!!!!!!!!!

>>19341869
Did you just make this meme rn? lmao.
Fix the typo, because this is actually good.

>>19335007
what is the final point of not laugh?. knowing yourself better?. communicate better?. i always think laughter is some kind of dominance over what you laugh off. that is completely uncontrollable. it's almost as a reflex.
sincere question:
>what is the last time you laugh to something and why?.

>>19335007
You're confusing depth with weight

>>19336952
"Streak"

Its been 4 days you fuck

By the way OP, are you the same poster who made the thread way back about laughter and comedy being a way to feel superior to your peers? There are not many people making threads about comedy, unless its the divine one.
>>19341602
I remember having a giggle when I read that. Its still pretty funny.

>>19335461
TikTok confirms this paradigm

>>19335007
i went down a bit of a rabbithole and found myself in the Eleusinian Mysteries wherein i discovered a literary representation of some divine secret:
>an ear of grain in silence reaped.

>>19335007
>>19335461
Laughing my ass off at how stupid this idea is.
There is no benefit to not laughing, all you will achieve is appearing like an autistic sociopath incapable of feeling joy.

>>19335007
Laughter is the path to enlightenment. By learning to laugh at yourself, others, and the world you begin to understand the true nature of things - that they're transient, that they're without self, and that they're unsatisfactory. It's not the only condition for enlightenment, for sure, but it's a necessary one.

>>19341602
>HoHoHo! I said/did the no-no thing!
>Kek! Look at me! I'm acting wacky, stupid, crazy!
ffs he doesn't even understand the difference between fun and humour

>>19339783
A good joke is generally the truth expressed in a new and unexpected way, they certainly benefit from having a logical pattern. Plus there's no way I'm going to take everything absolutely seriously.

>>19336672
Came here to say this exact thing.

>>19335007
You are reducing the nuances of humor.
From what you've posted in this thread it seems that you believe humor and laughter to be deceitful, a way of obscuring language, making it ambiguous, but you overlook the human art of humor.
You've said that humor 'warps reality', when that is only true for those who can not follow the logic of speaker, humor is the pointing out incongruency, failure, and absurdity, not the cause of it;
To shun humor is to run from instinctual aspects of yourself, and the removal of humor would result in the loss of complexity in language.
>The Sin of Laughter
Even though you might only say this to be poetic, it is strange to think of laughter as a sin or a willful action.
Laughter is the same as smiling or frowning, it's the expression of emotion, not the feeling itself.
Laughter is the response to humor, and as such foregoing laughter will not end humor, it will not change a person's perception of what they find absurd in this world, it would only hide from the fact of humor.

I would be better for you to say that you are against insincerity and shallowess, rather than say you are against humor and laughter.

>OP's paradigm is clearly in jest and therefore ironic
>dupes everybody

ENOUGH! I'm blind and can't see, therefore I have concluded that all seeing is grotesque. Close your eyes now or you will be PUNISHED!

Rene Girard wrote something on laughter. Can't remember which text. as you can see in picrelated he was not a mirthless man. But he did see something sacrificial in laughter. >>19337649
Rabelais and Bhaktin would probably be the most engaging counterargument to OP. Also Erasmus ('In Praise of Folly')

>>19344940
I found the passage. It is in 'To Double Business Bound'. Since tickling has come up in the thread, here's something I just found.
>The closest thing to a purely natural and physical laughter must be the body's response to a tickling sensation. In terms of sheer intensity, this response seems out of proportion with the feebleness of the stimulus, but it may well be appropriate to the real nature of the yet unidentified threat. In conditions of natural hostility, an urgent and deadly menace, a snake bite, for instance, might very well be preceded by no warning at all except for a little tickle. The fact that the stimulus is unknown and that it cannot be located with precision, at least immediately, increases the intensity of the reaction.

>>19342040
I have never sincerely laughed in my life. When I do laugh it is to avoid making people uncomfortable (the cult of comedy makes it so that responding with silence is not a socially viable option. If you don't laugh, the joker wonders if something is wrong with them or with you).
I softly say "ha-ha" to convince them that I have found the joke funny but, unfortunately, detecting a joke is incredibly taxing on the mind so sometimes I forget to laugh or otherwise, on occasion, miscalculate and laugh inappropriately. As of late though, I have become quite adept at judging when it is appropriate to laugh and when it is not. This skill is so important I think that I may publish a tract "On Detecting Humour and Simulating Laughter for The Agelast", idk yet.
>>19341227
>>19341289
I have probably read more literature (e.g. Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Bunyan, etc.) than philosophy actually.
I hate comedies because of how confusing and pointless the plots tend to be, without even the advantage of good prose most of the time. Shakespeare is always good, but he is a legend because of his dramas―and this should be obvious to any literate person―not his comedies.
Stories are just that though, and taking them more seriously than philosophy is foolish. The wisemen of antiquity thought deeply, and they came to have contempt for laughter. They saw it, rightly, as grotesque and irrational. Plato, Epictetus, Cicero, et al. opposed laughter in part or in whole. These were men who cared deeply about living life, they sought eudaimonia. I think I will try to emulate them and not Don Quixote.
>>19343869
>autistic sociopath incapable of feeling joy.
Stop spamming buzzwords, it makes you look stupid. I am capable of feeling joy―when I've earned it. People have forgotten this, life's greatest principal, and we are so much the worse for it. I seek to remind them of it.
The Puritans were the only ones brave enough to try to before me to my knowledge, and they did it for a while―unfortunately it didn't last. Still laughter has been recognised as a vice for centuries.
>risus abundat in ore stultorum
>>19343917
Laughter is the path to confusion, vexation, loss of self-control, malice, absurdity, arrogance, and ignorance. Avoid laughter at all cost!
>>19344008
Going on a walk is fun (an overrated emotion btw); laughing is evil.
>>19344495
There is nothing "absurd" in the world, because the world is consistent. Confusion arises by our lack of comprehension. With laughter, when one cannot comprehended something, hysteria ensues. Why? What is the purpose? Humour also perverts language to an unusable degree. Speech ought to seek clarity and sincerity; humour is obscure and insincere, and worse, absurd.
> it will not change a person's perception of what they find absurd in this world, it would only hide from the fact of humor.
Repression is the first step on the road to developing the virtue of humourlessness.

>>19345024
>Shakespeare is always good, but he is a legend because of his dramas
and also his poetry obviously.

People laugh at you OP, because you are a clown.

>>19345083
I'm not a clown; I hate clowns.

>>19341602
Fuck you, I did well in that thread.

>>19341602
> >stop enjoying things i don't enjoy
> Whoah

> Woah new cope just dropped

lmao

>>19345024
>I have never sincerely laughed in my life.
Dude... This almost seems like a joke. Not only are you autistic, but also extremely stupid.
>the man who never experienced [X] wants you to stop experiencing [X]

>>19345163
Are you fucking stupid? I have written extensively on the evil effects of humour, here in this very thread; on the societal expectations that come with humour; on the degeneracy of laughter; on the inherently negative nature of laughter and humour; but you just want to call me autistic right? You have been indoctrinated. Try to actually read what I wrote or else sod off.

>>19345199
This is like someone who doesn't have taste buds telling me to eat gruel for the rest of my life. Absurd beyond all reasonable contemplation.

>>19345243
I have observed the effects of comedy and offer this proscription after much contemplation.
Whether I have laughed in my life or not is immaterial to the accurateness of what I have observed, to the truthfulness of my analysis, or to the effectiveness of my recommendations.
Furthermore, life can be just as fulfilling, and likely MORESO, without humour, and by you're argument (which is really just an ad hominem fallacy) I, of all people, should know, so trust me please.

So, laughing isn't natural?
Does the thesis consider Jane Goodall's
work with primates and laughter?

>>19345292
Friend, did you read this >>19340468
I think it is an example of the abject cruelty of the present day cult of laughter (no one should be forced against their will to laugh, and so painfully too), as well as a good demonstration of the aversive power of tickling

>>19345024
>Spamming buzzwords
I'm not spamming buzzwords, that's literally how you appear to normal people.

>>19341602
I'm having a blast.

>>19345489
Yes friend, I did read it; I apologise, I meant to post my response to it but I forgot to and closed the website.
Essentially what I said was that I am against cruel and unusual punishment so I'm inclined to be against the use of tickle torture by the state, although I might revise this view depending on the effectiveness of this method in reducing humour in a subject (though, perhaps, even then it may only be proper in extreme cases).
This testimony doesn't cover how effective the tickling was in reducing his humour, but I suspect it wasn't very.

>>19345714
>I am against cruel and unusual punishment
Cruel punishment isn't cool, but unusual punishment is commonly accepted under most jurisdiction.

>>19345292
Could you explain color to a blind person? Why should I listen to a blind person's opinion on color?

>>19345748
Depends on the type of blindness. Most blind people see patches of colours.

>>19345748
What am I missing about humour exactly that makes my opinion invalid? I really want to know...

>>19345714
I agree anon. I also wonder if you have any ideas on how to combat the practice of tickling (especially forced tickling) carried out in the privacy of the home or in schoolyards. "Tickle games" are EXTREMELY common and tickle bullying is repulsively prevalent too.

Viz. its use by the state, I think tickling will be very effective if used as a punishment/deterrent against specific behaviours (like intentional laughter/humour). Here is another testimony I found. This one, although it is from a "BDSM" session, is unique in that the participants did not use a safeword and stuck strictly to the time limit, allowing for a real torture experience. The psychological agony is quite intense

>>19335007
Have you led a great life? Are you recognized as an exemplar of virtue amongst your peers?
Why should I listen to you?

>>19345785
>ad hom
yikes

>>19345787
>>ad hom
Counters arguments that are reduceable to arguments by authority where there is no authority.

>>19345757
You didn't answer my question. You really want me to try to explain color to a blind person?

>>19346194
You stupid fucking faggot, read what I'm typing:
I know what you want me to say but I don't think the analogy is one to one because I can obviously observe humour so I want you to tell me how exactly how my agelastic nature invalidates my opinions on laughter. I certainly don't think they make my analysis wrong because, as I've said, I can observe conversations in which humour is employed and notice how the meaning of language is perverted, etc. but maybe I am missing something, idk. I want you to tell me exactly what that is.

>>19346340
>I know what you want me to say but I don't think the analogy is one to one because I can obviously observe humour
The analogy works fine because it's not the ability to observe humor that you're lacking, but the sensation of laughter, which can't be observed. Because of this you missed the simple fact that laughter can in fact be sincere and spontaneous, not derisive. This isn't some sentimental take on laughter, it's a fact. Good critiques usually involve steelmaning, like admitting the good aspects and genuine forms of laughter and explaining why they should be avoided regardless. Since you never had the experience you're not even aware of them. Insincere laughter is forced and is not accompanied by a feeling, laughter that accompanies joy feels different than laughter of understanding between you and a friend, sometimes laughter is cathartic, but you wouldn't know about any of this. There is something spontaneous about it arising from within, something that only those who had it would understand, and the more I think about it the more I realize this conversation is totally useless. There is a reason why people might find your take on laughter genuinely funny and are not just deriding you, but you wouldn't know the difference. You actually, unironically made some people's day better by making them laugh with your posts, and they don't hate you.

>>19346488
I reckon there are three categories of laughter (this is a rough sketch, I haven't properly begun to categorise laughter yet).
> I. That which arises from perception of the absurd or unexpected
> II. That which arises from perception of the pathetic
> III. That which arises not from perception of anything in particular but from an overflowing of emotion
Types I. and II. have been pretty much covered already by me but I haven't covered III. so much, forgive me.
Type III. is insidious in that it is a kind of laughter which is done uncontrollably out of deep emotion; it is hysterical.
Rational man does not experience, or otherwise, does not encourage within himself, fits like this. Self control is always the aim.
You contend that being overtaken by such emotions is a good thing but why? why is measured delight not enough? why does one need to laugh?
Laughter is not only a symptom of lapses of reason, but of madness as well. There is a sickness about laughter that isn't taken seriously enough.
Laughter is also grotesque in general and obnoxious. I think I don't need to take the drug to condemn it and it's use.

>>19346880
But anon, presumably the selection pressures of evolution have conferred laughter upon us for very good reasons.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>19345199
>>19345024
Who shat this "cult of comedy" thing into your brain, anyway? Babies laugh when they're still tiny, who are you telling us indoctrinated them?

>>19346340
>maybe I am missing something, idk
We keep telling you what it is but you just don't get it. Which is why we're having such a good laugh here. And yes, it's a malicious laugh. We know the kind of demonic cruelty you are capable of with that self-appointed bullshit power fantasy of yours, and your endless going on about SIN and VIRTUE. Big fucking coincidence that one is exclusively on our side while the other is exclusively on yours isn't it?

>>19346340
>I don't think the analogy is one to one
No analogy is one on one, that's how they are analogies

>>19346488
this guy is right, it is totally useless. It's really only good for a laugh

>>19346880
>it is hysterical. Rational man does not experience, or otherwise, does not encourage within himself, fits like this. Self control is always the aim.
People allow themselves to laugh and it can be perfectly rational in the sense that communication is rational or it's rational to feel joy in a given situation.

>>19346954
>Type III. is insidious in that it is a kind of laughter which is done uncontrollably out of deep emotion; it is hysterical.
People can stop themselves from laughing but they allow it to happen because it compliments their emotion like a fine wine.
>You contend that being overtaken by such emotions is a good thing but why?
It can be a form of catharsis and psychological release, a form of communication and bonding, and a form of heightened joy or contentment, it can also accompany a moment of realization or insight and make it more meaningful. A smile or a look can say more than words, sometimes silence, sometimes a laugh, it's like short-form poetry. You're incapable of seeing the positive aspects to it and so you fail to address these points in any meaningful way.
>why is measured delight not enough? why does one need to laugh?
Why should other people limit their joy because you are limited? How can you condemn this form of benign happiness if you have never felt it?
>Laughter is not only a symptom of lapses of reason, but of madness as well.
Laughter often works in tandem with reason >>19344226.
>Laughter is also grotesque in general and obnoxious.
This is very subjective and not even an argument, you sound emotional and juvenile.
>I think I don't need to take the drug to condemn it and it's use.
No, but you shouldn't confuse your drugs, or good laughter with bad laughter.

>>19349430
my bad, meant to respond to this >>19346880

>>19345024
>There is nothing "absurd" in the world, because the world is consistent. Confusion arises by our lack of comprehension. With laughter, when one cannot comprehended something, hysteria ensues. Why? What is the purpose? Humour also perverts language to an unusable degree. Speech ought to seek clarity and sincerity; humour is obscure and insincere, and worse, absurd.
that´s the problem. humor exists because the world is not consistent at all. i suppose you look for a completely consistent world, so you don´t understand humor because you think is an obstacle to have it. but like the other guy say, failure and incongruency will always exists, human propose consistency and life don´t give it to them, that´s humor.
I encourage you to embrace and look for incongruency and failure as something human. its like your brain inmediately see failure and incongruency as something that need to be repaired. your mind is stiff as fuck. also, i can´t believe you never laugh off for some stupid thing, not even in your infancy?.

>>19335461
the Leviathan is full of top-tier banter though

In defence of laughter:

I want to preface with a quote from my favourite philosopher, Santa Claus. It goes something like this: "Ho Ho Ho! Merry Christmas!". And what better phrase to be uttered by a fat man in a magic sleigh traveling all across the globe to give the best presents to the kids who already have too much, and nothing for all the rest? Many misconceive laughter as an enjoyment of life, and they perceive Those Who Laugh as being too attached to life and its pleasures... I argue the contrary; that it is only through laughter that we may detach ourselves from this life and move onto the next in the hereafter.

The popular stance amongst critics of Those Who Laugh is that there are also those who laugh for mere enjoyment, and so therefore all laughter must be the product of some hedonistic pleasure. But let me ask you this: how many times do you laugh while you gorge yourself on chocolate, or orgasm, or mix in hot water with the cold when you have a steamy shower? If laughter is the product of hedonism and attachment to the corporeal, why do we not laugh during our most sinful moments? So, maybe you argue naively that laughter is just an element of certain types of sin, that watching trashy tv counts as sloth, and that he who laughs is so engrossed by the show because it makes him laugh. I aim to discredit this idea.

What is laughter but a recognition of life's absurdity, and thus a rejection of the world? There are certain examples of laughter (such as the tv shows) which are definitely harmful, but that's because those who laugh at tv are confused; they reject life, but they also crave it, because their rejection is linked to the tangible show. Those who laugh at life itself reject it in all its forms, they are recognising its absurdities and contradictions, and are preparing to Move On Over into the Next Life.

>>19349674
>the world is not consistent at all
Pretty sure he meant that the physical world is consistent, which it probably is. Things like Quantum mechanics just seem weird because we don't understand it intuitively, but, as the Black Basedence man sez, the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.

Obviously OP is ironic but if you separate laughter into laughter as an expression of joy and laughter as a result of comedy it becomes a rather serious argument, no pun intended, because the comedic laughter is always destructive. The culprit here is comedy, sarcasm, parody, mockery; these are all negative things, in the sense they're destructive. The comedian as an artist is about as vile as the art critic, if not more. Funny people are the fucking worst.

>>19335007
To be honest, lions are pretty overrated.

>>19336726
Is that you?

>>19341931
Comedy has completely ruined this website. People just spam the exact same joke over and over again. You didn't actually think that comment was funny did you?

>>19351971
the sarcasm, parody and mockery needs that you already feel the things they mock are something laughable. if you are not already feeling or thought about it, you literally don´t get the joke and end confused about why all that jazz about something pretty straight.
my point is that parody naturally arise because negativity naturally arise, somewhat in this time people don`t understand well the necessity of negativity and discomfort. this is like saying you have to be happy and content all the time. if you have negativity or discomfort you will have, eventually, sarcasm and parody.

>>19352994
>the sarcasm, parody and mockery needs that you already feel the things they mock are something laughable
This is just not true, in fact mockery is well documented as a means of shaping public opinion. People are terrified of humiliation.
>my point is that parody naturally arise because negativity naturally arise
Parody is also a perfect outlet so that people think they are free to criticize the powerful (but they don't care very much to mock the powerful, people mock the weak most of the time), while it actually trivializes serious matters and creates stupid narratives. Look at how it has made politicians' image more important than their policies. Just look at memes, we live in a world of parody and sarcasm, what has it given to people?

>>19353157
this is something i see from experience. you don´t get what i said. or i explain myself poorly. when you go to a place like, imagine you go to africa and you end up seeing a tv program of parodies of politics. and you end up confused because you literally don´t understand why and how that guy is something to laugh off. you can laugh for social lubrication thing, that is understandable. but what i say is that you need to have the same notion, you have to live in the same context as the joker to laugh with him. if you are not, you see the joker as something strange, not clever at all, just confusing and something alike alice in wonderland. a mad hatter without really sense. that can be funny, but is a difference kind of funny, not sarcasm or mockery, or maybe a mockery of everything in a too deeper sense.
other example is the inside joke of a group of friends, if you not see the history of that inside joke you dont get it, you cant get it.

>>19335007
I heard many years ago that author James Thurber had a professor who taught him this about humor:
"If a thing cannot bear laughter then it is not a good thing."

That has always stuck with me. I truly believe it. I was raised in a high demand religion that took itself waaay to seriously and always decried "loud laughter". But if you can't laugh at something then you can't critisize it, and nothing is above critisizm in my opinion.

Not only that but laughter is a universal part of the human condition. No matter our station, language or place of birth we all have an inborn need to laugh.
Why?
Because we need to express the absurdity of the world. We need to be able to joke with our fellow humans. We need to release stress that builds as we deal with the world.

Anyway, your kicking against the pricks in trying to deny such a fundamental part of human nature.

so this is what happens after not touching a pussy in 30 years and reading phil the whole day
hmmm sad life

>>19335461
HAVE SEX