Skip to main content

The Science of Dark Humour | Hri-write

I'd like to begin by saying this blog isn't meant to offend anyone. It's all for the sake of fun and entertainment, and to satisfy my sadistic desideratum. If you're easily offended, or if this blog offended you in any way, it's because it was meant to.

(If that last line offended you, get out right now. It's going to get much worse.)

It might be worthwhile to address the question of 'why we laugh' before dealing with comedy styles such as dark humour.
We believe laughter evolved from the panting behavior of our ancient primate ancestors. Today, if we tickle chimps or gorillas, they don’t laugh “ha ha ha” but exhibit a panting sound. That’s the sound of ape laughter. And it’s the root of human laughter. Apes laugh in conditions in which human laughter is produced, like tickle, rough and tumble play, and chasing games. Other animals produce vocalizations during play, but they are so different that it’s difficult to equate them with laughter. Rats, for e…

Understanding extremist terrorism

While I hate to talk about such a grim, dark topic, terrorism is running rampant across the globe, and there just seems to be no end. In 2017, the face of terrorism are organisations like ISIS. So, what exactly is terrorism? Merriam-Webster calls terrorism "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal."

Let's face it, terrorism isn't new. It's been around for a long time. The word, in fact, dates back to the late 18th century around the time of the French revolution. So why is it such a big deal now?

Because now terrorist organisations aren't local. They are getting more radical, and they don't just have political agendas. They've become irrational, crazed with the idea of securing the world under their woeful grasp.

To understand terrorism, it's essential to understand where it begins. All terrorist activities are motivated by one or two things, social/political injustice or the idea that violence will solve the problem. People resort to terrorism when they've suffered grave hardships, being stripped of their civil fundamental rights is a good example.

This doesn't sound like such a true analysis, but read deep enough into the history of terrorist organisations and you'll find that either of these is generally true. Secondly, the impact of cult-like belief is quintessential when it comes to large terrorist networks, who use indoctrination and propaganda to sell their ideas to children and young adults, inclusive of all.

The prerequisites

Terrorism doesn't just spring into an individual's mind and then expand to thousands of people. There has to be a suitable environment that facilitates and promotes the ideas of a particular person. This situation forces people into thinking that violence will resolve their problems, and before you know it, thousands of people have banded together rebelling  against who they think is to blame. 

In many cases, terrorism is common in places that have histories of injustice, violence and instability. These could be poor societies, former colonies or disputed territories.

Motive 1: Global attention

Many are also in it for the global media coverage. In many instances, you'll see organisations claim responsibility for terrorist attacks, when in reality it is possible that they had little to nothing to do with it, but they do so because it furthers their status as a dangerous faction.
"Although many people today believe that that religious fanaticism "causes" terrorism, it isn't true. It may be true that religious fanaticism creates conditions that are favorable for terrorism. But we know that religious zealotry does not 'cause' terrorism because there are many religious fanatics who do not choose terrorism or any form of violence. So there must also be other conditions that in combination provoke some people to see terrorism as an effective way of creating change in their world." [1]
 The global platform that we are giving to extremists and terrorists in the form of world news is actually counterproductive. They want to spread their ideology to more people, and normally (without media coverage) would have to resort to word of mouth and other manual propaganda, but the way that world news is putting them on the front page of the morning paper, they don't have to spend nearly half the time promoting their cause.
"Terrorism has a built in positive feedback loop. The more atrocities pay off in media attention the more appealing they become...consider how ISIS displaced Al Qaeda with its slicker production values, social media nous, and even more exciting atrocities."[2]
 Media networks have a lot to do with it, but again, they are not to blame. They try to maximise profits, and this means showing the viewers what they want to see. However, there's little that can be done about this.

Motive 2: Threatening civil order

Most terrorist organisations recognise that the legitimacy of a government depends strongly on the security that it can provide to its citizens. So, they become fixated on the manners in which they can mass hysteria, panic and political turmoil. In modern democracies, parties in power are really worried of being removed if they don't act against the terrorists and maintain the confidence of the populace. Hence, they are forced to deploy more security to provide protection, especially in public locales.
"Every time you see a policeman with a machine gun in an airport or train station you are reminded of how powerful and dangerous the terrorists are. All this serves to raise the price that governments pay for denying terrorist groups what they want. Sooner or later, governments always talk to the terrorists and try to cut a deal." [2]

Motive 3: Trap of War 

Governments rely on upon the confidence of their natives that they are truly responsible for things. I as of now said administrations must exhibit skill in guarding their citizens from political terror, i.e. easing panic from terror. They consider the administration responsible not just for the prosperity and success of the general population additionally as the watchdog of national tensions. Fear based oppression fills these individuals with fierceness and equitable anger. (Sometimes they feel fear as well, and that makes them considerably more furious.) Psychological militant assaults like 9/11 or Mumbai or Paris are viewed as immediate difficulties to national respect. The state must demonstrate its prevalence by responding in a yet more marvelous way and winning the mind war.

Furthermore, this is obviously precisely what a specific sort of psychological oppressor terrorism is. They have made a figured wager that inciting an outrageous response by a first world nation will shake up the norm such that their plan advantages.
"Governments routinely blunder into the terrorist trap when their sense of national dignity is insulted, sometimes with world changing results. Austria-Hungary's overreaction to the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand launched the first world war. More recently, there was America's overreaction to 9/11. The US spent on a scale that could have paid for mitigating climate change - an actual global threat - or ending world poverty."[2]


I've said it countless times. Posting Twitter and Facebook statuses condemning the attacks will not do anything; it will instead serve the terrorists. In the 21st Century, terrorists are using our freedoms against us. They use the benefit of the free press to advocate for their beliefs, and terrorism moves increasingly toward the countries with the biggest audiences. 

"The new problem of terrorism as a global phenomenon, which millenarian Islamism may have inaugurated but will surely not end with them, is that groups with no particular quarrel with democracies may target them just because doing so has a higher pay off. It's not because they hate our freedoms but because they can use them against us."



Popular posts from this blog

Where is all the 'alien life?' - Fermi Paradox and other theories

My first blog, ever, was about understanding the odds of alien life. I've gotten much better at writing blogs since then (or so I like to tell myself), and it would only be right if I reinstate the legacy of that one.

We should openly admit that when we happen to be under a starry night and see a sight similar to this, we all have a react in a different and interesting way. Some people are left boggled by the immense size of the universe, others by the sheer glamour of the scene and if you're anything like me, you're paralysed by the sudden realisation that you have a negligible impact on the universe. The point is, we all feel something.

When he looked up at the sky, Italian physicist Enrico Fermi too felt something, a thought that lingered around this question, "Where is everyone else?" It's been half a decade since Fermi passed on, but he left us with a fundamental query and idea.

Fermi realised that in a universe as old and vast as this, there should be…

The Psychology of External Validation

A recent conversation intrigued me to explore this topic, and I find it perhaps one of the most relevant ones I have written about. So, here goes.

I've known people who always get hundreds of likes on their posts hours within posting them. I have never been one of these people. I've never received many likes or shares, and when I was in my younger years, it was hurtful, in a way. I used to see my posts and shares sit on my wall for days with only a few likes, and back then, it was painful for me, so to say. It made me doubt my worthiness, and created a feeling that no one cared about what I had to say. I used to post a lot on Facebook just to see how many likes/shares/comments would accumulate in a few hours. I would be disheartened when that number didn't live upto my expectations. I'm sure some of you have had this feeling, and it's okay.

Why? Why, just why is it like this? Why do we doubt our worth, why do we feel so bad just because someone didn't press or…