Always, just like most of the jokes on hereâŚ
Thow the hand grenade with the pin pulled
1 Like
It was disingenuous of you to state that the thread had been titled incorrectly, on the grounds of what I took to be a deliberate misunderstanding on your part of the word âschadenfreudeâ. I assumed that you knew its actual definition and meaning, because you come across as well educated and well-read. However, Iâm prepared to apologise if you genuinely werenât aware of the actual meaning of the word when employed in English conversation. If that was indeed the case then you werenât being disingenuous, merely mistaken.
I wasnât asking for an apology, neither do I wish for one. I merely asked you to say why you thought Iâd been disingenuous, which you have done. So thank you for that. As to my mistakenness or otherwise, I can honestly say that I have never before seen or heard the word schadenfreude used as it is in the title of this thread. Any time I have heard the word used in English conversation it has always had the underlying sense that I mentioned in my earlier post. So, no misunderstanding, no lack of knowledge, just my own experience.
To give another example: if you were to look up hubris youâd find the definition as âexaggerated pride or self-confidenceâ or something along those lines. In use, however, it is pretty much invariably associated with some sense of impending comeuppance, deflation or humiliation. A slightly less prosaic definition of hubris might be âthe pride that comes before a fallâ. Schadenfreude, to me and very likely to many others, suggests rather more than its dictionary definition. Usage rather than definition is the point here, in both cases.
That said, language changes all the time - the only languages that donât change are dead ones such as Latin. So itâs entirely possible that, at some point in the future, the sense in which you have used schadenfreude will become more common than the sense in which I would use it, and will therefore be the commonly accepted meaning of the word. Or it may not - thatâs one of the many beauties of language.
And, for a rather deeper delve into schadenfreude (though far from exhaustive), this is worth reading.
Itâs not a word that crops up often in normal conversation. But I listen to a lot of documentary and comedy, mainly on R4, where it regularly shows itâs face, and Iâve never heard the qualification you ascribe to it. My guess is that youâve connected it mentally to a well known principle of comedy writing, that a situation will always be funnier if the victim of a misfortune has brought it on himself.
If we donât agree on anything else, Iâd be amazed if you didnât agree that practically every author and broadcaster in the country views the OED as the authoritative reference point on the current meaning and usage of words in UK English.
1 Like
In German, it is only ever used in context of feeling that the victim somehow deserves their fate. Itâs never used in context simply taking pleasure in others pain without qualification. But itâs impossible to describe the nuance in English and I suspect that is why the simpler definition is available. However, even in English usage, in my experience, it is most often as used within that context
@scotty You make an elegant case for humour being a personal thing and you point to some of most âsickâ jokes often being the most popular⌠but I would argue that popularity should never be the yardstick by which what is right and wrong should be measured⌠at the risk of evoking Godwinâs law (in this case I believe justified) Hitler was quite popular with the German folks for a whileâŚ
I think the internet and availability of video everywhere has made us lazy with respect to humour. We are pre disposed to slapstick as being funny, but the funniest has always been where its been well thought out, is unique - ranging from Tommy Cooper to Bottom - and the laugh is âsafeâ because we know its not real. With these videos of folks getting injured the moral compass shifts because it is real (unless staged) and so I whilst its fair for an individual to determine if its funny to them or not, its certainly no longer ambiguous as to whether its right or wrong to laugh at it.
It reminds me of the âDarwin Awardsâ - There IS something funny about the concept of the stupid removing themselves from the gene pool in every increasingly ridiculous ways - and when taken in that context I have to admit I have laughed when reading these stories - but when you think about, I was laughing at real people dying⌠simple as that, so its not something I can feel proud of continue to do.
So now we have folks capturing serious injury and even death presented for entertainment and that for me is where I dont think its right to continue to share it , no matter how many folks find it funny. the more its shared the more normalised it becomes and not sure I want to be around a place where people being injured, maybe maimed or killed is seen as fair game for a laugh
If such a nuance existed, which it doesnât, the OED would reference it in their definition. What youâre doing is ascribing something to the word that you feel it ought to suggest, in the same way Fowllyd has. Youâre saying thatâs what it means in your head, therefore thatâs what it means, full stop. Neither of you has even acknowledged the simple fact that the OED is the single most respected source in existence of authoritative information about words used in the English language. Youâre simply wriggling around the factual information placed in front of you like Donald Trump shouting âfake newsâ.
This cartoon landed in my WhatsApp folder this morningâŚ
2 Likes
I have not been saying anything of the sort. What I have said is that definition is one thing, usage is another. I had not previously encountered the term shadenfreude used in the way that you use it (as the title of this thread), hence my feeling that it was mistitled. If, as you say, it is frequently used in this way, then fair enough. I canât pretend to know every instance of the appearance of any word, after all. All i can do is speak from my own experience, which is what I did. This is not the same as ascribing a meaning to word that it doesnât have, which you suggest that I have done.
As for the OED, of course I recognise its authority. Iâd be a fool not to. But I also know that there can be, and very often is, a lot more to a word than a dictionary definition of fewer than ten words. As I said in a previous post, words change their meanings and their usage. It could well be that the usage of this particular word is broadening - these things happen - in which case my own use of the word may come to seem archaic in the not too distant future.
None of this makes you right and me wrong, or indeed vice versa - we hold different opinions here, so we may as well leave it at that.
I find life so hard these days.
So.
Are these funny or not?
1 Like
If one person objects then obviously not 
You are arguing about the wrong thing. I wont dispute the OEDâs definition. I will however suggest you are NOT German and its only when you speak and really understand a language do you really get the full meaning. Like Zeitgeist, Realpolitik, and many other German words appropriated, the OED translations do not recognise the nuanced use in native form. they cannot not because of missing facts because they simply cant⌠I have never used it with out that context as it would be alien to me⌠If you cant get that, its a shame but there is nothing I can do about that. If you asked a German what would they call laughing at someone injuring themselves who they dont know they suggest a ânasty accidentâ no matter how much slapstick might be involved - they would not use schadenfreude
But anyway you are looking to detract from the actual issue, which is those posts of real people getting injured is simply not a joke no matter how funny you and however many other folks laughing on sickowhatever find it⌠something you cant argue away with your expert knowledge of German languageâŚ
Itâs probably time to close this thread.
Itâs getting very he said, she saidâŚ.
Perhaps that is the nature of debate?
Iâm not the one that tried to reinforce a dig at the video by calling my literacy into question.
You clearly canât grasp the notion that a loanword passing from one language to another is unlikely to retain itâs precise native meaning, although I accept that as a German speaker via your family, you would see the native meaning more than itâs meaning when used in English conversation.
I addressed your point about the taste or otherwise of the clip at some length. Your comparison of it to a snuff movie was ridiculous hyperbole, particularly as the clip shows the rider walking away afterwards albeit with assistance.
Iâm done with the subject.
Dont close it, ffs, its comedy gold.
4 Likes
Er, I did not do this, I merely waded in afterwards when observation had been made about the suitability of the title
OK I can concede this, but its fucking annoying because the meaning is much better in original form
I never compared it to a snuff movie, I asked a simple question of whether a snuff movie might be next if we are happy showing vids of folks accidents⌠please at very least get your facts correct, afterall you did post 
Fair point 
1 Like
I didnât say you had.
You find me amusing?
