(Note: I taught a course on Comedy for several years, so in spite of the more serious issues we are confronting in our society today, this issue hits home personally. Sorry for the long-winded response, but to anyone who takes the time to read it, Thanks!)
There are two issues here: the joke itself and the retweeting of it.
(Note: I taught a course on Comedy for several years, so in spite of the more serious issues we are confronting in our society today, this issue hits home personally. Sorry for the long-winded response, but to anyone who takes the time to read it, Thanks!)
There are two issues here: the joke itself and the retweeting of it.
As for the joke itself:
I think we all agree that the joke is offensive on two levels: It is misogynistic and it attempts to mock the LGBTQ+ community and a mental illness as part of the punch line.
I'm going to go on the principle that analyzing an offensive remark helps to defuse it. When we can examine how human language is used offensively, we objectify it, and by so doing, we remove at least some of the subjective "sting" we feel from it.
So, I would have explained to my students that the joke is a lie, which you can tell from the logical fallacy, the overgeneralization, it begins with: Every girl is "bi." That overgeneralization is a stereotype: Every girl is NOT 'bi' although some are, and who cares in today's world anyway? And as we have discussed before, any stereotype is a lie and only leads to other lies. In a syllogism, since the initial premise is false, any conclusion it reaches will be untrue. Invalid. With this joke, you can laugh at its clever attempt to use a prefix "bi" in a unique way, but that does not make it true or significant. The conclusion of the joke, the second half here, can never be true if the original premise is false.
In other words, the text of the joke announces itself as a lie with that logical fallacy, overgeneralization, i.e., stereotyping. So, it is not meant to be taken seriously, but rather as another example of the absurdities people believe. It is fiction, and as a text, it can help us distinguish truth from fiction. It's our duty to recognize such absurdities, and if we feel hurt by an absurdity, by language that is intended to demean us in some way, we always have the option to say, "So what?" in response.
The punch line, the conclusion of the joke, has already been proven invalid by the faulty premise. Therefore, the words bisexual and bipolar have been defused of any truth or relevance in this syllogism.
To radically shift the humor of it, I might have added, maybe the "Every girl is 'bi' means that every girl is "bi-lingual." Which would be terrific for the world if it were true.
As for the retweeting of it:
The foul here is that WaPo has a policy of not tweeting or retweeting any jokes The list is clear of what not to tweet, and it encompasses any broad category of humor. So the guy who retweeted it knew he was in for trouble by disobeying company policy.
So, in conclusion, people have tried to weaponize language since the first grunt made by our primate ancestors on the savannas of Africa. It's up to us to de-weaponize the language by analyzing it and seeing it for what it is: words, words, words.
If the joke had been: "Every girl is 'bi.' You just have to know if it's lingual or sexual." Would that have been better? It still has the overgeneralization in the premise, which is a logical fallacy, so the conclusion is false. But in this case, somehow the story the joke tells sounds much more interesting and pro-social.
(Note: I taught a course on Comedy for several years, so in spite of the more serious issues we are confronting in our society today, this issue hits home personally. Sorry for the long-winded response, but to anyone who takes the time to read it, Thanks!)
There are two issues here: the joke itself and the retweeting of it.
As for the joke itself:
I think we all agree that the joke is offensive on two levels: It is misogynistic and it attempts to mock the LGBTQ+ community and a mental illness as part of the punch line.
I'm going to go on the principle that analyzing an offensive remark helps to defuse it. When we can examine how human language is used offensively, we objectify it, and by so doing, we remove at least some of the subjective "sting" we feel from it.
So, I would have explained to my students that the joke is a lie, which you can tell from the logical fallacy, the overgeneralization, it begins with: Every girl is "bi." That overgeneralization is a stereotype: Every girl is NOT 'bi' although some are, and who cares in today's world anyway? And as we have discussed before, any stereotype is a lie and only leads to other lies. In a syllogism, since the initial premise is false, any conclusion it reaches will be untrue. Invalid. With this joke, you can laugh at its clever attempt to use a prefix "bi" in a unique way, but that does not make it true or significant. The conclusion of the joke, the second half here, can never be true if the original premise is false.
In other words, the text of the joke announces itself as a lie with that logical fallacy, overgeneralization, i.e., stereotyping. So, it is not meant to be taken seriously, but rather as another example of the absurdities people believe. It is fiction, and as a text, it can help us distinguish truth from fiction. It's our duty to recognize such absurdities, and if we feel hurt by an absurdity, by language that is intended to demean us in some way, we always have the option to say, "So what?" in response.
The punch line, the conclusion of the joke, has already been proven invalid by the faulty premise. Therefore, the words bisexual and bipolar have been defused of any truth or relevance in this syllogism.
To radically shift the humor of it, I might have added, maybe the "Every girl is 'bi' means that every girl is "bi-lingual." Which would be terrific for the world if it were true.
As for the retweeting of it:
The foul here is that WaPo has a policy of not tweeting or retweeting any jokes The list is clear of what not to tweet, and it encompasses any broad category of humor. So the guy who retweeted it knew he was in for trouble by disobeying company policy.
So, in conclusion, people have tried to weaponize language since the first grunt made by our primate ancestors on the savannas of Africa. It's up to us to de-weaponize the language by analyzing it and seeing it for what it is: words, words, words.
If the joke had been: "Every girl is 'bi.' You just have to know if it's lingual or sexual." Would that have been better? It still has the overgeneralization in the premise, which is a logical fallacy, so the conclusion is false. But in this case, somehow the story the joke tells sounds much more interesting and pro-social.