tinyjo | Only joking

It always surprises me that otherwise sane, sensible and adult people still make an effort to do silly things for April Fools day. The Today programme spent 5 minutes burbling about a new synth version of the Archers theme tune, Google are opening a moonbase and there've been various people posting about unlikely events happening in their lives. It's not that these jokes particuarly annoy me but I rarely find them actually funny. You get to the end or whatever and yes, it's a joke and... I don't know, perhaps I'm sense of humour deficient but I just can't really see the point.

If it was just that people did this and that was all, I would be able to roll my eyes and say "People, eh?" but what I do find annoying is people who take it seriously and get all angry and agressive. I'm sure the Today programme and the Archers editors will be getting plenty of emails complaining about the proposed new tune and then when the hoax is revealed complaining that they were hoaxed. I'm surprised that LJ even decided to have another joke after what happened last year and the amount of noise and fuss even in some of the comms I read like

lj_biz is ridiculous. It's the sort of thing I can imagine sounding like a funny idea when batted around in the LJ offices but I'm surprised it seemed worth the hassle to actually do.

Thinking about it, I rarely find jokes involving deception or playing tricks on someone funny. I hated and loathed Jeremy Beadle with a passion. Perhaps it's the sense of betrayal of trust which sours it for me. I don't want to come off as lecturing anyone - I haven't been offended or hurt by any of the jokes I've come across this year - it's just made me muse once more about how much I don't get it.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

God yes. Beatle went beyond amusing/funny into something else - though I was fairly young at the time and more easily offendable, I still don't like the idea of people's property being destroyed/people being that upset by 'jokes'/impersonating police officers etc.

And like I've said before, most LJers need a good dose of Usenet. If they had that there'd be so much less drama. I can quite understand Brad et al wanting to wind up such easily provokable people....

I only caught the beginning of that Archers them tune thing on the Today programme, and then I arrived at work, so I had to leave my car - it was so obviously going to be an April fool though.

Broadly I agree with you, although it was quite funny when The Guardian printed their entire G2 section as one mammoth April fool...

I agree about the hoaxing thing, the fundamental premise that people are supposed to be suspicious all the time and that it is funny when they're not is flawed. I even have sympathy for the celebrities spoofed by Chris Morris for this reason, if a celeb insisted on doing an in depth analysis of every request for help they would soon be denounced as being miserable bastards.

most LJers need a good dose of Usenet. If they had that there'd be so much less drama.

!

I really can't see that making things better. :)

Thinking about it, I rarely find jokes involving deception or playing tricks on someone funny.

I think there are two types of April Fool's jokes. There are the ones that set out deliberately to deceive - which, I agree with you, are somewhat pointless - and there are the ones that are obviously fake, but take the opportunity to make a point. I put the LJ ones in that box; nobody in their right mind could have thought that the change to 'stalking/stalked by' was serious, but it made a point. It's not the admin's fault that LJ is full of people not in their right mind.

(Similarly, this is still making me giggle. Particularly the M John Harrison and China Mieville quotes.)

Oh, and your package arrived today. Thanks! It took me a while to work out why the CD wasn't playing in my stereo, though... :)

there've been various people posting about unlikely events happening in their lives

In case of any confusion, I should probably say that the post I made at 12.24 this morning wasn't a joke:-)

(Though obviously the timing of it all did cause a few comments in the office...:-))

nobody in their right mind could have thought that the change to 'stalking/stalked by' was serious

Sure they could. What about people who actually are being genuinely stalked in real life? People who have received threats of cracking against their journals? These people are going to see a change like that and become genuinely upset and anxious.

I think one of the reasons "stalking" was used was probably because of the number of people who are willing to throw the term about in trivial situations, who fail to realise that stalking is a genuine serious problem. And yes, I agree that such people deserve to be mocked, but just throwing the word around some more really doesn't help.

These people are going to see a change like that and become genuinely upset and anxious.

...and if they have any brains at all, they'll look at another person's journal to see if the change has happened anywhere else. And they'll see that it has.

just throwing the word around some more really doesn't help.

It wasn't 'just throwing the word around some more'. It was making a very specific, very important point.

...and if they have any brains at all, they'll look at another person's journal to see if the change has happened anywhere else.

Except that people who are upset and emotional aren't generally famed for rational thinking.

Which part of it involves rational thought? Panic reactions will just as easily debunk it. Thinking 'ohmygod' and randomly clicking on a link. Or making a post about it and being informed of their mistake. Or glancing at their friends page and finding out what's going on. Or emailing the LJ admins and being told what's going on. Or finding that it just goes away after a few hours.

All of which takes time (well, maybe not some of the panic reactions but certainly emailing LJ or waiting for it to go away do). And I'm sorry, but I don't believe that it's OK to upset someone just because it will only be for a few hours.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that this is a big deal or anything. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, and I'm certainly not going to kick up the big fuss that a few people are doing. I just think that this sort of thing does genuinely hurt some people, and as such I consider it ill-advised.

And I'm sorry, but I don't believe that it's OK to upset someone just because it will only be for a few hours.

Well then, let's stop talking about gay marriage because it might upset the man who had a nervous breakdown when his son came out. Let's stop asking for the truth about Iraq because it might upset the relatives of soldiers who died there to think they died in false cause. Let's stop talking about anything, because it's going to upset someone!

That's an exaggeration, of course, and I agree that, obviously, you should try to avoid hurting people whenever possible. But...I think raising any issue worth raising is going to risk hurting some people; and I think that in this particular case, the risk is small enough that it justifies the hoped-for benefit in making a point to the reactionary, hysterical mass shouting about lj stalking. I think people, when it comes down to it, are basically quite resilient. :)

I don't think it's even remotely comparable to contrast replacing friends/friends of with stalked/stalked by and having an enquiry on Iraq or debating gay marriage.

In those cases, I see value in the debate and the issues - they're important and worth having. This wasn't really making a point - everyone agrees that the Friend/Friend Of designations are not quite right, and serial adding is a hot topic right now for some reason - and they must have known that it would piss off a lot of people and offend/unnerve a few as well as confusing new users (I saw a couple of support requests from people who'd just started their accounts and were confused or worried by it). I just don't see what the payoff is for that.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that this is a big deal or anything. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, and I'm certainly not going to kick up the big fuss that a few people are doing. I just think that this sort of thing does genuinely hurt some people, and as such I consider it ill-advised

ill-advised is exactly the right word. I think you're bang on here.

I don't think it's even remotely comparable to contrast...

Like I said, it was exaggeration for effect - they're on the same spectrum, but obviously at completely opposite ends!

This wasn't really making a point

Well, that's where I disagree. :)

Only joking

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject