Not to back track from the threads current progression, but I just figured out how to say what I wanted to say.
yak said:
if someone said something and grinned - it must be funny and you laugh. if there was no grin to accompany the joke - then it is taken seriuos - and the joke is spoiled
This is the very logic behind laugh tracks in sitcoms. It is simply that laughing is contagious, and by putting in laughing noises you tell the viewer when to laugh. Like everything, there are two extremes to the use of the laugh track, and both ends have been reached. On one side you have Andy Khaufman's sitcom "Taxi" which had no laugh track, and not too surprisingly, despite it being one of the best sitcoms of all time, the viewer will not laugh at it nearly as much as with other sitcoms. On the other end is "The War at Home," which is a horrible sitcom due mostly to poor acting, that for some reason I find myself laughing through. Quite simply it is the over used laugh track.
But on to what this imposes on humanity at large. You see the laugh track is the culmination of modern mans need to be told what to do. We, as a people, not as individuals, have forgotten a basic function, the convulsion of the lungs to produce laughter at the appropriate time. This goes all the way back to Great Eras of Kings when a man in the presence of the king would not laugh until the king had laughed first. For if you laugh, and the king does not, then clearly it wasn't funny, and you were out of line. A most embarrassing thing to do. Now, I am not saying there is a direct connection between that and the modern laugh track, however it is based on the same principle: embarrassment, or being out of place.
In man's ever going quest to fit into society, being embarrassed is number one on the list of things not to be. To avoid embarrassment we look for any number of subtle social hints to guide us along the path to appropriateness. A few people can tap into these clues so effortlessly and smoothly it seems as though they instinctively know what it correct to say at all times when it is simply that they themselves are so good at reading minor social clues that they themselves do not know they are doing it. These are the people that become the leaders of groups. The most popular of the popular. At this point one might point out that the Fonzes of the world do not always say the "right" thing, but in truth they do. As Einstein would say, "Everything is relative." One must not think of authority figures, be they teachers, police, politicians, whatever as the ones who define social correctness. It is the friends of the popular people who define it.
Now I am starting to sound like a bitter highschool nerd outcast, I know, however it is not without reason. What I am getting at is that humanity is not at some evolutionary turning point, but infact at a social singularity. More and more of human culture is becoming smoothed into a single stream because when you take a large mass and allow it to define its own workings, things will inevitably be worked into a consensus where all parties agree what is best. Clearly at this point in time man is no where near this. One must but take a passing glance at the middle east to see this blatantly spelt out for them. However 1000 years is but a drop of water in the ocean when time is infinite.
Long after our lives have expired and our bones gone to dust, culture will not exist any longer in the way we perceive it. Man will not hunt man for his beliefs. But at this point, when all is one, when the matter of society is crushed into a single point. At that point a new thing will happen. A cultural explosion will burst forth, rocketing man from its Utopian flat culture into a new time of war, strife, and beauty.
Ape Shall Never Kill Ape said:
yak, have you considered joining scientology? You really seem to fit the profile, and I bet they could help bring out some of those special gifts you have that society has been supressing.
On a quick side not to Scientology: The movie Battlefield Earth is scientology. As a movie, it is a complete waste of time and money, however it redeems itself with how well it represents scientology. If you do not believe me, find someone who owes you five bucks (because its not worth using your own money to see it), rent it, and study it. Also, it gives credits to L. Ron Hubard.
And finally, I personally find humans easier to draw than furries, however furries are much more entertaining to draw, and peak my interest far easier than things depicting humans.
you'll make a completely different impression on others on the net. simply for the fact that you were using them for so long you forgot other ways of beeing funny and/or expressing your emotions and mood. *a very crude example, i agree* so what is happening to our sence of humor? is it degrading? or is it beeing vigurously squeezed into some sort of template thinking(like everything is as of late), meaning if someone said something and grinned - it must be funny and you laugh. if there was no grin to accompany the joke - then it is taken seriuos - and the joke is spoiled... why it became a preffered option to take stuff seriuosly rather then poking fun at it?(making fun of it?) why people find the need to clarify some time that they were beeing funny or sarcastical or simply not seriuos? even at times when it is clearly noticable? this just isn't right. but then again, the more you look the more such anomalities you see around you... and it is all society's fault! 
