[quote=@SleepingSilence]
[@Dinh AaronMk] Brought a lot of the table to discuss with that one didn't ya?

No, the theory in my opinion holds absolutely no water in my eyes. It doesn't make any sense. That was my point...I'm also completely aware of the differences, so thanks for the implication otherwise. Scientifically backed theories have been proven wrong before. So why not now?

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/

http://list25.com/25-science-facts-that-were-proven-wrong/


[/quote]

Here's the thing: scientific theory arises out from observation of the universe and tests and experiments to prove or disprove a presently standing hypothesis. The theory is devised after the fact as a way to wrap up all evidence that arises and either proves or disproves to starting hypothesis. The over-all theme of science is to continually scrutinize standing theories, that is true and I won't deny that. But because something is a theory does not mean it should be automatically written off, especially with purely anecdotal evidence ("I'm white and my ghetto black friends like all my race jokes!" is hardly a sweeping statistical observation).

There is also the point to be made that much of what's listed in this link can be summarized as being folk myth. Either lacking the scientific tools of the present day, or not having it been explored before the wider populace can be lead to believe that of course the stars orbit Earth, or of course a penny dropped from great height can kill you because reasons. But in the case of the later any physicist could have explained to anyone the case of terminal velocity and energy potential in relation to an item's mass vs terminal energy. We only really consider it debunked because MythBusters did it, when really it's been mathematically dead since gravity.

Going further, taking your anecdotal cases to task (X thinks Y joke is funny because X is my friend) then if you would actually bother going further into it then these alternative situations arise, but don't disprove the idea because they also studied and read into those cases. His TED Talk actually goes into the detail of this.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysSgG5V-R3U[/youtube]

The case being that because of the relationship between you and them neutralizes the malign aspect of telling a nigger joke and makes it benign and acceptable. As would be the case telling any other sort of joke may be considered malign or benign depending on the person you're telling it to (In a case provided in the video: A religious person would groan over a church raffling off a Hummer, a non-religious person would laugh at a church raffling off a Hummer).

So now we have to invariably come around to "PC Culture" and being in the public sphere: when you do anything in public you ultimately open your image, message, or product to a broad audience who can see or read into what you're presenting according to their personal biases. A White woman blandly and unapologetically telling an open joke about black men may not go over as well if the same joke was told by a black man. This bleeds into the realm of performance art, or any art rather. In order for something to work it HAS to be spun in some creative manner. Sure, you could make a comment about Jews, Auschwitz, and showers but simply screaming "GAS THE KIKES LOL PRAISE KEKE AND MOLOCH" is unsurprisingly not going to be taken very well unless you've taken the time to take it from the threatening sphere it otherwise exists in to subvert it with absurdity and subtlety.

You could also say, "JAIL THE NIGGERS, THEY'RE SUBSERVEANT TO THE WHITE MAN. LOL CSA IS GRAND". Or you could, you know: explore the entire master-servant relationship and subvert both sides and actually have an acceptable relatable joke for the public sphere.

But you're really not doing anything right now except exemplifying feels over reals, assuming one-of anecdotal incidents otherwise useful for examples to illustrate data. If you think the theory is flawed, then where is your theory? And "people are just over-sensitive because muh friends" is not theory, it's hypothesis.

And if theory is flawed, then let's just liquidate capitalism already.