Except that there is a HUGE difference between someone saying something as a joke and actually meaning it. While a joke is taken from a serious situation, it makes light of the situation to provide us with humor. To use your example, I can joke that the French are cowards but that doesn't mean I believe it or even take the idea seriously, I just think it will be funny, unlike someone who says it seriously and is obviously trying to make a point. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I can see what you're getting at there is a difference between the two and it's nowhere near as cut and dry as you make it seem.

I AGREE WITH SWANSON SO MUCH RIGHT NOW!

...also this seems like more of a Marble Gardeny topic, don't you think?

Matters like this are why the question "Are you serious?" exists. It's why we humans are blessed with this thing called discernment, and common sense. Heck, it's why jokes like this are even possible to begin with: taking your example above, the vast majority of people, I would like to believe, don't think for a moment that most if any of the stuff they see on stuff like South Park or The Simpsons is to be taken the slightest bit seriously. If a group of people in a cartoon say or do something, more often than not, most people aren't going to take it seriously. The very nature of the cartoon is signposting to say whether or not any of it should be treated with any sort of merit.

Let's take it from another angle. Suppose a caveman dressed as a clown approaches you in the street and rants at you in a loud voice about how the French are cowards and how Italian tanks move fastest when retreating. You probably wouldn't give his rantings much merit, seeing as he is, after all, a caveman dressed as a clown, and ranting in a way that's drawing stares from passers-by.
Now then, suppose the very next day, a well-known and perhaps even famous political commentator approaches you and talks with you at length about his views on French and Italian military strategy and tactics, and how he doesn't think much of them. You'd be far more likely to take this man seriously and listen to him, and also give some merit to what he was saying, as he is, after all, well-known for his informed opinions on these things.

Then, imagine that this same gentleman tells you with a straight face that the moon is made of naught but blancmange. You'd probably be shocked, and likely to ask him if he seriously expects you to believe that. Depending on how he replied, you'd then quite likely be inclined to a) call the rest of what he said into question, or b) accept it as his actual views: i.e., if he cracks up and laughs and says he was just joking about the moon, you'd probably go with option b. But if he keeps a straight face and says that yes, he does expect you to believe that, option a is more likely.

Now, granted, there are still some fairly heavy implications in both scenarios about the group of people in question. However, the key issue involved is in who they are being expressed by, and in what way. Any passing French or Italian person is a lot more likely to take offence (assuming they are suitably patriotically minded) from the intellectual than the caveman, seeing as the caveman is quite clearly a lunatic and not to be paid attention to as opposed to the intellectual whom is well-known and may be well-liked.

tl;dr version: There may be no difference in the implied suggestion, but there's a whole world of difference in whether or not you should take what they're saying as a genuine belief of theirs or not.

...also this seems like more of a Marble Gardeny topic, don't you think?

... it sort of blurs the line between an MG topic and an MFC topic, at least. If a mod feels MG is a more appropriate place for it they could always move it there.

As for Swanson's reply, even if you don't mean it the point remains that you're expressing the idea by using it, since the joke uses the serious idea it developed from. There are other means of humour, so why go for the one that came about through anti-French stereotypes?

... come to think of it my comparison of people to cartoons is probably a bit of a weak analogy. I shall fix that.

The problem is that because I'm joking my expression of the joke is not taken at face-value and is shrugged off because it was a "joke." However, if I seriously stated that the French were cowards there would likely be someone to point out how my viewpoint may be wrong.

As for the other part, different humor is used around different people and subjects. For instance, it's not a wise idea to use sarcasm when talking to a toddler as they likely won't get it. Or in the case of why you would choose the anti-French stereotype, people choose to make those jokes not because they believe them but because they know their friends or whomever will laugh.

Or in the case of why you would choose the anti-French stereotype, people choose to make those jokes not because they believe them but because they know their friends or whomever will laugh.

... the question of why they picked the anti-French joke is still there, given how many jokes there are to choose from. That one depends on the context, of course, but at the same time raises another question; in any case, is a cheap laugh worth borrowing from the products of anti-French stereotypes?

They probably do believe in whatever they're joking about to an extent if they make a joke about it unprompted...

Like, say, a family's sitting at a dinner table and all of a sudden the father busts out a joke involving the stereotype of black people loving chicken. Nothing involving black people or chicken was going on right at that moment to prompt such a joke (unless they were eating chicken... even then it would seem kind of out-of-left-field) so it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that man may be a weeee bit racist...

But what if he left a comment with the same joke on it in this video? I don't think people would take him for a racist since there was something involving black people and chicken going on at the moment. He just thought of something he thought that was funny involving the two because the video prompted that train of thought. Most people probably wouldn't figure this man has racist beliefs. (Though there are probably exceptions with how POLITICALLY CORRECT everything has to be nowadays...)

So, in summary... if they made an anti-french crack out of nowhere and for no reason then they probably do hate the french. If something was going on to prompt it... not so much. They probably just thought it would be a funny and appropriate (funappropriate?) thing to say at the time and don't really hate the french. It's just... really context-sensitive.

Nothing involving black people or chicken was going on right at that moment to prompt such a joke (unless they were eating chicken... even then it would seem kind of out-of-left-field) so it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that man may be a weeee bit racist...

I think we're all "a weeee bit racist" to some extent. I don't think it's fair to single out specific individuals for this.

My point isn't about "whether or not they hate the French" or "whether or not they hate black people" or whatever the subject of the joke. My point is that by using whatever joke they are in turn using the serious idea from whence it came, whether they personally agree with said idea or not...

That right there is the annoying spirit of YouTube commenters everywhere. "Even though you are being very satirical and not making any avid statements, the mere fact you even GRAZED upon a subject which is within my scope of opinionated rage means THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!!"

There is a reason why no one likes that one guy who cannot take a joke.

Nothing involving black people or chicken was going on right at that moment to prompt such a joke (unless they were eating chicken... even then it would seem kind of out-of-left-field) so it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that man may be a weeee bit racist...

I think we're all "a weeee bit racist" to some extent. I don't think it's fair to single out specific individuals for this.

My point isn't about "whether or not they hate the French" or "whether or not they hate black people" or whatever the subject of the joke. My point is that by using whatever joke they are in turn using the serious idea from whence it came, whether they personally agree with said idea or not...

Oh... then I geuss I can agree they ARE using the same ideas, somewhat... (like you I'm not saying they agree with them, but they are using them.)

At first I thought you were asking why people treat jokes differently than serious statements. >_>;

Context, and having a good sense of humor.  These two things make a lot of difference even in bad situations.

Nothing involving black people or chicken was going on right at that moment to prompt such a joke (unless they were eating chicken... even then it would seem kind of out-of-left-field) so it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that man may be a weeee bit racist...

I think we're all "a weeee bit racist" to some extent. I don't think it's fair to single out specific individuals for this.

My point isn't about "whether or not they hate the French" or "whether or not they hate black people" or whatever the subject of the joke. My point is that by using whatever joke they are in turn using the serious idea from whence it came, whether they personally agree with said idea or not...

Oh... then I geuss I can agree they ARE using the same ideas, somewhat... (like you I'm not saying they agree with them, but they are using them.)

At first I thought you were asking why people treat jokes differently than serious statements. >_>;

Well no, I clearly wasn't "asking." I started off acknowledging that people do, and went on to describe why I felt it was a double standard. The only thing I "asked" was where people thought these jokes come from, and at first that was more of a rhetorical question anyway. o.o

It comes because people still have that opinion about the French - heck, many folks in the UK STRONGLY dislike the french and think they are pompous and snooty cowards, despite there being no actual reason to believe this.

It exists because it exists and people seemingly love to perpetuate it regardless of having nothing but hot air to back it up...that seems to be how things are, from the perspective of somebody who's never really cared about that particular single stereotype. I don't think there's ever really going to be any one definitive reason how or why it came to be - people...just really want to hate on the french, apparently.

Besides, does anyone actually think it's funny to call the French scaredy-cats?  It's more of a token stereotype these days rather than something based in firm reality or even a joke that's well done.  Any idjit can say "Wow look at that coward run, he might be faster at retreating than the French."  But to get someone to really laugh about it, it'd have to be delivered a lot more cleverly.

I'm not sure if this is the same but us brits often joke about with stuff like "wot-ho good sir!" and stuff dispite knowing fully well that not a single brit on earth (to my knowledge) speaks like that, not even the queen. It's just a funny stereotype, no-one beleives it.

If anyone makes a joke about the French being scaredy cats and all that nonsense and seriously believes it's true then at least you know they are a total idiot because France is as much of a warrior country as the rest of Europe, possibly more than most. They used to be the global no 2 after all. They resisted the German invasion a hell of a lot for a country that borders them. They're just generally ace.

I think people who believe the coward thing are just jealous that the French make the best lovers, maybe tied with the Italians o.-

I think people who believe the coward thing are just jealous that the French make the best lovers, maybe tied with the Italians o.-

... I wouldn't presume to know their reasons. Besides, the relevant point, more than anything else, is that they're wrong regardless of their reasons.

You're not meant to rationalise any of this, Matt - it's humour, there's no rhyme or reason to it...it just happens to work this way.

If you feel that you're dying to dissect the concept of humour to it's core components in order to understand it, methinks you were just born without a good concept of knowing what humour is to begin with. It's LITERALLY not MEANT to be the subject of a deep concept for debating, bottom line!

I think people who believe the coward thing are just jealous that the French make the best lovers, maybe tied with the Italians o.-

... I wouldn't presume to know their reasons. Besides, the relevant point, more than anything else, is that they're wrong regardless of their reasons.

...there needs to be better smileys for showing that you're joking. It was a joke, and a bit of an ironic one considering the context.

There is no country that makes better lovers than any other; it's just taking the mickey of France's somewhat less offensive stereotype for being very good at all things romance, and dissing the people who make the jokes at the same time. I'm sure the French won't mind being told they make the best lovers, the joke is pretty much harmless. And the Italians just make the best food [PERSONAL OPINION]

From my experiance, people who actually do hate the French don't tend to crack jokes about them, they just tend to fume about them a bit. Like my dad. My dad is impartial though he hates every country equally. Pretty much including his own.

i think the reason people stereotype is cause, every person believes his/her race and culture is superior to others. calling it a joke is just a green light to let out that racisim in their head. 

as for youtube, i love reading their comments, it makes me laugh and some times i feel relieved knowing others thought the same thing and i'm not weird. it is mean it is racist but i wont lie i was thinking some of those things ... here's a mean truth, one time i was seeing this video about a 2 headed girl and someone in the comments asked about the number of chests she has >_<  i know its rude but that does cross our minds doesnt it?  people started getting angery at him for saying that cause it was a serious topic about twins stuck together and having it rough with people teasing them.

sometimes you gotta accept the jokes and know they're coming and it doesnt mean for you to hate the people that tease you, a lot of times those people are nice, they just said what they were thinking. something you would've thought too but probably wont have said. hating them for saying it is really just venting your anger at yourself on someone else.

and about turning someone's serious topic into a joke, that sometimes works and makes it fun but i can understand if that hurts sometimes... but again that just means your own failure, if you had more confiedance and loved yourself more you wont be upset about jokes like that.

XD i know this sounds wise but its hard to follow what i just said even for me, but remembering that will make life better. .....i hope that made sense.

There is no country that makes better lovers than any other; it's just taking the mickey of France's somewhat less offensive stereotype for being very good at all things romance, and dissing the people who make the jokes at the same time.

... but still, something seems a little disingenuous about "dissing" them for things other than what one's problem with them is in the first place. (Which in my case, would be, "their assumption is questionable at best" if they mean it, and "their joke carries with it the implications of the stereotype from which it came" if they don't.)

Matt, you're implying that there's something logical and rational which causes dislike of this kind. Prejudice is more often than not absoloutely irrational. I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm asked why I hate things, all I do is list things which I states as a result of me hating them and not the cause in a futile attempt to justify something that not even I fully understand.

I hate the movie Day After Tomorrow, for instance. I despise it. I would burn every copy if I could. And I have a list of reasons which back up my hatred, but it's not the worst movie I've ever seen and it's not the most disappointing one either, there's no real reason for me to despise it as much as I do, but I do. It deserves to be hated, for sure, but there's no reason for me to do so.

Sometimes these things are just bred into culture. History is full of memes which mutate and infect the human psyche to the point where they don't make sense anymore. All you have to do is look at modern words and link them back to their definition and you'd see the bastardization taking place. It's probably possible to work out how the word "geek" mutated in 70 years from "Carnival act who bites off chicken heads" to a word which includes "person who reads comic books" among several other definitions.

I've been seeing English hate French jokes since I was born, and so I just accepted that it was a cultural fact without my own opinions... and why would I have opinions. I've never been to France or interacted with a French person, why would I form my own opinion when I have nothing to base it off of. Best to just trust the pre-existing opinion installed in my brain by society at large.

There probably was a START to all of these jokes, and to be honest I think the whole thing started with the whole French Armada thing and the stigma of Napoleon's actions, and even then that's just speculation... but when you get people making social commentary over the years and people's strong opinion is passed down the ladder to the following generations it just becomes an unconcious fact with no grounds.

The world is full of these things, from the devil looking like a saytr (where the bible says no such thing) to small things like the quote "Beam me up, Scotty", which was never once uttered by Captain Kirk, despite being quoted all the time.

Long story short, you're talking about a justifcation for something which is so ingrained into the public psyche for over a hundred years that even if you could root out it's beginnings, you'd never be able to remove the mis-assumptions. Such is the power of meme.

and to be honest I think the whole thing started with the whole French
Armada thing and the stigma of Napoleon's actions, and even then that's
just speculation...

French Armada? Never heard of that one...

Personally, I think it started for the British in 1066 when the French supplanted the English aristocracy and a natural antipathy kicked in against the new overlords. Napoleon was a comparatively recent thing, but even that wasn't the place where the cowardice thing really entered recent folk memory. That just goes back to when France was occupied in WWII, when the French surrendered and subordinated their government to the Germans.

And guys, it's not racism if the other people aren't a race. If they're just from a different country, then it's xenophobia: fear of foreigners.

There probably was a START to all of these jokes, and to be honest I think the whole thing started with the whole French Armada thing and the stigma of Napoleon's actions, and even then that's just speculation... but when you get people making social commentary over the years and people's strong opinion is passed down the ladder to the following generations it just becomes an unconcious fact with no grounds.

The world is full of these things, from the devil looking like a saytr (where the bible says no such thing) to small things like the quote "Beam me up, Scotty", which was never once uttered by Captain Kirk, despite being quoted all the time.  

... I suppose these kinds of things can be used to gauge how much more or less susceptible to this phenomena different people are, maybe setting up a chance to compare them or something...

Oh I am such a dumb fool. Sorry Sam. *hangs head in shame forever*

*hug*

No, you're not. Sorry if I came across as a bit abrupt - I've been trying to get a lot of things done before tomorrow morning and posted that in a rush.

Matt, you're implying that there's something logical and rational which causes dislike of this kind. Prejudice is more often than not absoloutely irrational. I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm asked why I hate things, all I do is list things which I states as a result of me hating them and not the cause in a futile attempt to justify something that not even I fully understand.

So few understand this.  I posted here quite a long time ago a topic about "what makes stories good?"  I've learned that a story is considered good if it is considered good.  Most explanations are rationalizations.  There is no correlation between stories making sense, or playing to any number of the things that most people curmudgeonly say, and how people rate them.  The things that do work are more emotional and aesthetic, and often a story that works does so by "stealthing" the things that trigger curmudgeons, sort of like a suspension of disbelief.

Matt, you're implying that there's something logical and rational which causes dislike of this kind. Prejudice is more often than not absoloutely irrational. I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm asked why I hate things, all I do is list things which I states as a result of me hating them and not the cause in a futile attempt to justify something that not even I fully understand.

So few understand this.  I posted here quite a long time ago a topic about "what makes stories good?"  I've learned that a story is considered good if it is considered good.  Most explanations are rationalizations.  There is no correlation between stories making sense, or playing to any number of the things that most people curmudgeonly say, and how people rate them.  The things that do work are more emotional and aesthetic, and often a story that works does so by "stealthing" the things that trigger curmudgeons, sort of like a suspension of disbelief.

Well, to be fair, emotional/aesthetic appeal to a story could be considered a good quality in itself, (it's pretty subjective anyway) especially if that's what people like about it.