Originally Posted by wolty
Seems humour is objective. Who'da thunk it?
We didn't give this matter a lot of thought before rushing to comment, did we? Humour has two parts; the presentation, which is always objective, most obviously in parody and satire, and in the reception which is invariably subjective. The factors affecting the reception are the subject matter, the comic timing and the audience's perception of (empathy with) the presenter. For example; devout Catholics were outraged at Max Gillies' portrayal of the Pope as an inveterate masturbator, while the rest of us (with any sense of humour) thought it very funny. I imagine that no matter how funny Gillies was on other subjects, the serious Micks would have written him of as diabolically anti-Catholic and totally unamusing under any circumstances.