You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
At least that’s what I’m taking away from this cartoon:
(via The Atheist Pig)
Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.
I have a suspicion he’s converted to Judaism purely for the jokes.
Does it offend you as a Jew?
No, it offends me as a comedian!
…before he was diagnosed with cancer and started cooking meth.
There is no master of my domain.
The Pope and Raquel Welch are in a lifeboat. They’re out on the ocean and, yada yada yada, and she says, “Those aren’t buoys.”
Salvation now, insanity later.
Is this the group that goes around mutilating squirrels?
Mary, to the Wise Men: “you gotta see the baby!”
the baby really is breathtaking.
i hated Seinfeld.
i thought the show was vapid and stupid and totally unfunny. and ridiculous. did any of those people have a Job? no, they just cracked bad jokes in an apartment all day.
meh. it’s TV. it’s about things that aren’t real. what else is to be expected?
They had jobs:
Jerry was a stand-up comedian (aka – he played himself, duh); George held a variety of jobs (he was perpetually changing jobs, it seemed); Neuman was a postal worker; Elaine worked in something having to do with advertising/marketing – and Kramer – well, I don’t think he ever really had a job (but the money came from somewhere for his apartment – not sure where).
As far as the show being “vapid, stupid, and totally unfunny”? Nothing could be both further from the truth, while at the same time being “spot on”! It was, after all, “a show about nothing” (which, by the way, was a two-part episode, IIRC).
All the episodes didn’t take place in the apartment – on one episode, it took place entirely (or almost entirely) in a chinese restaurant (they were all waiting for a table – for the entire episode).
There was also the great episode that had it’s sequence of events run entirely backwards; it started with the closing credits and music, and ended with the opening credits and music.
…and these are only the beginning. You really don’t know what you missed.
“There was also the great episode that had it’s sequence of events run entirely backwards; it started with the closing credits and music, and ended with the opening credits and music.”
Do you know what Jerry is in Indian? Jugdish.
(i love that episode)
A lot of people, myself included, has had Seinfeldesque situations. My boyfriend, by his own admission, is a little bit of George and Kramer.
I used not to like Seinfeld, but it was only after putting in a lot of investment that I “got” it. You don’t have to like Seinfeld, obviously, but it might help to understand it.
Most sitcoms are about a “situation”, at least at first. Seinfeld was never about a single situation, and in that sense was not a traditional sitcom. But nor was it about “nothing”.
It was fundamentally about social situations for which there is no existing social training. Each show puts one or more of the characters into a predicament for which no etiquette guide in existence would be any use whatsoever, and examines what would happen.
Some of these predicaments are very light, such waiting to get a table at a restaurant, but no table ever becomes available, to the point where you start wondering if the manager is actually ignoring you.
Some of them are surprisingly deep, such as having just started a relationship with someone, who then has a severe accident which potentially could leave them in a permanent vegetative state, and the person’s family assuming that the relationship was far more serious than it actually was.
The catch is that the show did require a lot of investment from the viewer (in particular, it requires getting to know the characters very well) to get to that level.
You, whose life evidently consists self-identifying as a “dyke” (as though that gives you gravitas), reminiscing about having employment and posting dull as mud comments on blogs, calls someone else’s work vapid.
your comments, on the other hand, are a breath of fresh air.
Do you define yourself by the naysaying you do in blog comments?
I hope not.
stick, meet mud.
I too could never get into Seinfeld. I also could never get into the “humor” shown on the Letterman Show (though Letterman was funny as hell the one time I caught him as a -guest- on another talk show). I could also never get much out of Monty Python or Steve Martin, though my brother finds MP & SM a stitch.
It’s supposed to be about the comedy – not its approximation of reality. Would any comedy pass that litmus test?!
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.