You still haven't specified how the definition is responsible for the bad examples. And you really haven't specified how the examples are so irredeemably bad that cleanup would be useless. If the examples need pruning, we prune them. If the definition is asking for negative examples, we give it a warning about negativity. I can't imagine how a definition would be 'asking' for Zero Context Examples, so once those are removed or properly expanded, we should be left with a perfectly manageable page.
That's Crosses the Line Twice - so offensive its funny.
(The current description claims the difference is as follows: "The difference between this and Crosses the Line Twice would be if someone farts and what happens next. In Crosses the Line Twice, the fart flares up a candle, which burns down the building. In Refuge in Vulgarity, the character farts and then soils themselves. Not really funny just for that." So, Refuge in Vulgarity is Vulgarity Is Not Funny - one more unworkable definition to add to our list of four.
Or perhaps "vulgarity for the sake of being funny", which may or may not succeed.
Any usable definition definitely should not include "...but not funny" as the current laconic seems to imply, because that would attract negativity.
Okay, I'm bumping this up to say that I've updated the Laconic from "Crude, unrefined humor used to pander to the Lowest Common Denominator." to "Rule of Funny applied to vulgarity". This should clear the meaning up, and avoid any Flame Bait. I suggest we alter the article a bit to fit the new Laconic.
Bump. It appears that Vulgar Humor is the winning option. Any objections?
The world needs more capable people. Are you?
Alternative Titles: Refuge In Vulgarity
29th Aug '12 3:28:21 AM
Vote up names you like, vote down names you don't. Whether or not the title will actually be changed is determined with a different kind of crowner (the Single Proposition crowner). This one just collects and ranks alternative titles.