A man walks into a bar, takes a seat on the next-to-last stool, turns to the empty stool right next to him, and says “Miss, can I buy you a drink?” For the rest of the evening, he chats and flirts with a non-existent woman sitting beside him. The next night, same story. And the next night, same story again. Finally the bartender comes over and asks, “Why do you keep talking to that empty stool, night after night after night?”
The man replies, “I am a physicist. I’m relying on a quantum mechanical possibility that a beautiful woman may tunnel in from some extra dimension and materialize on that stool. If that happens–well, I’ll have the inside track with her.”
“That’s ridiculous,” says the bartender. “Plenty of women come to this bar every night. You’re presentable and very articulate–if you tried to chat up one of the women here, she might be interested.”
The physicist laughs. “Yeah, right–how likely is that?”
There are two ways to read the last line of this joke. One reading makes the physicist arrogant–“Oh, bartender, what do you know of quantum mechanics?” The other makes the physicist abashed–“I’m such a nerd, no woman would talk with me.” I find the first reading funnier. The banana peel on the sidewalk could trip anyone–but it’s more fun when Mr. Snob takes a spill.
In the tiny world I live in (physics academia), jokes about people who are stupid are “dean jokes”, and jokes about people who are arrogant are “theoretical physics jokes.” For example:
The theoretical physicist’s prayer: “Dear God, make me less arrogant–and may I remind you that the OED defines ‘arrogant’ as follows….
I’m thinking about my own arrogance yesterday in claiming a right to tell “meta-offensive” jokes. That is, I don’t like jokes that hurt people’s feelings, but I do claim a right to stand up against any group’s loud self-importance. Today, I want to step back from yesterday’s claim.
First, I know I have my own prejudice. If left-wing Democrats say, “Hey, that’s not funny!”–chances are, I too just plain don’t get the joke. If right-wing Republicans don’t like a joke–chances are, I still could think it’s very funny.
Second, I admit the line between “hurting feelings” and “challenging power” is artificial. If I tell a joke that implies group xxx can’t hurt me, how can that not insult people who have a strong allegiance to xxx?
In conclusion, I don’t like jokes whose point is that group xxx is dishonest or sub-human. I do claim a right to tell jokes that mention group xxx as if it had a real share of human fallibility. And I do admit, in all this, to my very own share of human fallibility.
Betsy’s quote of the day: “Without good humour, learning and bravery can only confer that superiority which swells the heart of the lion in the desert, where he roars without reply, and ravages without resistance.” (Samuel Johnson, 1709-1784)