# Why do corrupt cops hang around in groups of three?



## .   1

G'day Cultur@s
What type of joke is this?
What makes it funny?

Why do corrupt cops hang around in groups of three? 

Because 
one 
of 
them 
can 
usually 
read... 









and 
another 
one 
can 
usually 
write... 









and 
the 
third 
one 
likes 
to 
hang 
out 
with 
i 
n 
t 
e 
l 
l 
e 
c 
t 
u 
a 
l 
s. 


.,,


----------



## Etcetera

This joke looks so plausible that it even doesn't seem funny...


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Mod Note:  Before making any contributions, let me emphasize that these are the only two items up for discussion:

*What type of joke is this?
What makes it funny?*

If the thread shows signs of evolving into chat or a collection of other jokes, it will be closed.

Thank you for your understanding.


----------



## cuchuflete

What type of joke is it?  I don't know official joke classification, but I would call it all of the following:

1. Amusing
2. Visual-- something in the direction of concrete poetry.  It enforces a slow pace, much as a live entertainer would, by the physical array of letters.
3. A wee bit polemical, in the line of social criticism.  It starts with the assumption that some cops are corrupt, and then disparages them for their limited mental resources.  The result is the joining of two images of such cops:  corrupt=stupid or uneducated.

What makes it funny?  The reader is introduced to a topic:
Corrupt cops

and a question (just a setup, not really very critical, but a useful pretext)
Why in groups of three?

Then come the 'jokes within the joke' which are stereotypes about people who are not all that smart:

1. Just one in three can read.
2. Just one in three can write

The stage is set, and the joke teller drops the punch line in our lap.  We are not surprised, but amused by the reinforcement:

3. The third is so dumb that he thinks people who can either read or write are intellectuals.

It is satiric, and well-presented as an amusing collecting of barbs.  As social criticism of corrupt cops, if that in fact is part of the intent, it doesn't work very well.  The average listener is likely to walk away thinking it is another 'dumb cop' joke, rather than a joke about corrupt cops.


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> G'day Cultur@s
> What type of joke is this?
> What makes it funny?
> 
> Why do corrupt cops hang around in groups of three?



What I find interesting in this joke is that you found it necessary to specify that it's only the "corrupt" cops being made fun of.  Throughout Eastern Europe, we have a huge number of similar jokes, and they are normally told about cops in general (and it's not like they are without basis -- a huge percentage of policemen in the ex-Communist countries would indeed fail some very basic tests in reading comprehension and written expression; we have actual official reports written by semi-literate cops circulating around as jokes). 

So far, I've never heard native English speakers telling jokes like this, but if they normally find it necessary to include a disclaimer that they're making fun of the "corrupt" cops only, this certainly tells a lot about the respect for law enforcement ingrained in their culture. In fact, I suspect that this joke is merely an adaptation of a similar one coming from Eastern Europe; I can hardly imagine someone from the Anglosphere coming up with it.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> What I find interesting in this joke is that you found it necessary to specify that it's only the "corrupt" cops being made fun of. Throughout Eastern Europe, we have a huge number of similar jokes, and they are normally told about cops in general (and it's not like they are without basis -- a huge percentage of policemen in the ex-Communist countries would indeed fail some very basic tests in reading comprehension and written expression; we have actual official reports written by semi-literate cops circulating around as jokes).


You have hit the nub of the joke.
It is specifically about corrupt cops.



Athaulf said:


> So far, I've never heard native English speakers telling jokes like this, but if they normally find it necessary to include a disclaimer that they're making fun of the "corrupt" cops only, this certainly tells a lot about the respect for law enforcement ingrained in their culture. In fact, I suspect that this joke is merely an adaptation of a similar one coming from Eastern Europe; I can hardly imagine someone from the Anglosphere coming up with it.


I have visited New Zealand three or four times and that is the total of my overseas experience yet I wrote the joke.
This is why I am asking about it in a Cultural forum.
So far a Russian and a Croatian Canadian have found it too realistic to be funny and a bedel American found it to be humourous in a slightly contrived manner.

.,,


----------



## TRG

The joke was not at all funny to me, nor was I offended by it. I'd have to say I just didn't get it, but after reading the previous couple of posts I think that leaving out the word corrupt would make the joke funnier.


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> The joke was not at all funny to me, nor was I offended by it. I'd have to say I just didn't get it, but after reading the previous couple of posts I think that leaving out the word corrupt would make the joke funnier.


Leaving the corruption out of it just makes it a mean discriminatory statement.

.,,


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> It is satiric, and well-presented as an amusing collecting of barbs. As social criticism of corrupt cops, if that in fact is part of the intent, it doesn't work very well. The average listener is likely to walk away thinking it is another 'dumb cop' joke, rather than a joke about corrupt cops.


G'day Cuchuflete,
Thanks for the brilliant examination of the joke. There is a point to the dumness of the corrupt cops that I hoped to point out.

There is no other job on the face of the planet that posesses the potential to deliver the amazing level of personal satisfaction that being an honest cop ensures you will receive.

Any person who does anything at all to jeopardise such a career is stupid beyond belief but to do it for a few sheckles is tragic.

Have you ever seen any report of a crooked cop where the cop is being portrayed as anything other than base? There is no intelligence required to be corrupt when you are sanctioned by the State to carry weapons and have the power to summarily arrest.

My choice of corrupt cops to replace the usual foil in what is a pretty standard Music Hall joke is an attempt to introduce the inherent stupidity in corrupting a glorious vocation.

.........................................................................Honest Cop
I started every day with the repeatedly justified expectation that I would be required to fight for my life and the only possible variable was to what degree my opponent would survive the encounter.


.,,


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> I have visited New Zealand three or four times and that is the total of my overseas experience yet I wrote the joke.



And before that, you really hadn't heard any of the nearly identical jokes known by anyone from the former Soviet Bloc? 



> This is why I am asking about it in a Cultural forum.
> So far a Russian and a Croatian Canadian have found it too realistic to be funny and a bedel American found it to be humourous in a slightly contrived manner.


I wouldn't say it's too realistic to be funny -- as I said, countless variations on the same theme have been widely told throughout the former Socialist world. For some reason, in Eastern Europe we are often inclined to make jokes out of what would be considered in many other places as issues too serious or tragic to make fun of.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> And before that, you really hadn't heard any of the nearly identical jokes known by anyone from the former Soviet Bloc?


A nearly identical joke is nothing like the same joke.
As has been pointed out by Cuchuflete there are multiple factors at play.
It has been suggested that I write the joke with no mention of corruption and that would be a nearly identical joke but flavour of the joke is changed completely.
You suggest that I change it to be a Polish joke but that one has a bight at Big Brother type totalitarian control which is nothing like my joke and is dismissive of Polish people as being ignorant.
There seems to be a vast chasm in your nearly identical.
You have said that the inclusion of the 'disclaimer' indicates a high degree of respect could not be further from the intent of the joke. The corrupt inclusion is not a disclaimer. It is the set up of the whole joke. If the joke is about stupid cops it is just a stupid joke. The joke is not about stupid cops being corrupt the joke is about corrupt cops being stupid.

.,,


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> A nearly identical joke is nothing like the same joke.
> As has been pointed out by Cuchuflete there are multiple factors at play.
> It has been suggested that I write the joke with no mention of corruption and that would be a nearly identical joke but flavour of the joke is changed completely.
> You suggest that I change it to be a Polish joke but that one has a bight at Big Brother type totalitarian control which is nothing like my joke and is dismissive of Polish people as being ignorant.



I just gave the Polish version as an example that came near the top of a Google search; you'll easily find many similar jokes (and even the same one) in Russian, Czech, Romanian, Hungarian, ex-Yugoslav, etc. versions. There also exist many other versions of the joke in all these countries, of which some deride the Communist totalitarian control, some point out the police corruption, and others merely deride the stereotypical stupidity of socialist policemen (or actually "militiamen," as they were called in Communist times). 

And the jokes from the "semi-literate socialist cops" genre, including this one, are decidedly not about portraying any given nationality as stupid -- merely their law enforcement agents. They certainly don't offend anyone on any basis except perhaps the professional one. 



> There seems to be a vast chasm in your nearly identical.
> You have said that the inclusion of the 'disclaimer' indicates a high degree of respect could not be further from the intent of the joke. The corrupt inclusion is not a disclaimer. It is the set up of the whole joke. If the joke is about stupid cops it is just a stupid joke. The joke is not about stupid cops being corrupt the joke is about corrupt cops being stupid.


Then I don't find it very logical. Being corrupt in one's professional duty is a sure way to end in prison unless either: (1) corruption is so widespread that it's more or less openly tolerated in practice, or (2) one is very skillful in hiding it, which certainly requires being smart. Thus, if the joke is told in a context where universal police corruption is assumed, then the qualification is unnecessary, and otherwise it's quite illogical, because a corrupted cop has to be smart to avoid detection.


----------



## winklepicker

What kind of joke?

Copist.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> I just gave the Polish version as an example that came near the top of a Google search; you'll easily find many similar jokes (and even the same one) in Russian, Czech, Romanian, Hungarian, ex-Yugoslav, etc. versions. There also exist many other versions of the joke in all these countries, of which some deride the Communist totalitarian control, some point out the police corruption, and others merely deride the stereotypical stupidity of socialist policemen (or actually "militiamen," as they were called in Communist times).
> 
> And the jokes from the "semi-literate socialist cops" genre, including this one, are decidedly not about portraying any given nationality as stupid -- merely their law enforcement agents. They certainly don't offend anyone on any basis except perhaps the professional one.
> 
> Then I don't find it very logical. Being corrupt in one's professional duty is a sure way to end in prison unless either: (1) corruption is so widespread that it's more or less openly tolerated in practice, or (2) one is very skillful in hiding it, which certainly requires being smart. Thus, if the joke is told in a context where universal police corruption is assumed, then the qualification is unnecessary, and otherwise it's quite illogical, because a corrupted cop has to be smart to avoid detection.


Give me just one example of that joke where the setup is corrupt cops and the punch line is that the third one likes to hang around with intellectuals.
Not similar to.  Not substituting corruption for stupidity.  Not substituting corruption for communism.  Not substituting the punch line to turn it into a critique of totalitarianism.  Not substituting corruption for a nationality.
You are not addressing my joke, you are just comparing my joke to other jokes and then criticising my joke because you think that it is the same as the other jokes.  It is apparent that you do not understand my joke.  That's cool.  I can't expect a 100% success rate but my joke is my joke and it is nothing like your many posted links but I thank you for the comparasions because they have allowed me to see some differing versions of the joke that are so vastly different in intent and outcome.

This is more revealing than I had expected.

Thanks mate

.,,


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> Give me just one example of that joke where the setup is corrupt cops and the punch line is that the third one likes to hang around with intellectuals.
> Not similar to.  Not substituting corruption for stupidity.  Not substituting corruption for communism.  Not substituting the punch line to turn it into a critique of totalitarianism.  Not substituting corruption for a nationality.
> You are not addressing my joke, you are just comparing my joke to other jokes and then criticising my joke because you think that it is the same as the other jokes.  It is apparent that you do not understand my joke.  That's cool.  I can't expect a 100% success rate but my joke is my joke and it is nothing like your many posted links but I thank you for the comparasions because they have allowed me to see some differing versions of the joke that are so vastly different in intent and outcome.
> 
> This is more revealing than I had expected.




It seems like there's some misunderstanding here. I identified a joke as belonging to the "semi-literate cop" genre. Because of their huge number and popularity in the part of the world where I come from, classifying such jokes in a single category is as natural to me as e.g. instantly recognizing a "how many X does it take to change a lightbulb" joke as belonging to that specific widespread genre of jokes. And just like I would be surprised to hear that someone came up with a lightbulb joke totally independently (i.e. without having previously heard at least some old lightbulb jokes), I also assumed that your joke is another one of the "semi-literate cop" variety based upon previous examples from the same genre.  This doesn't mean that I'm criticizing it in any negative way. I figured that this would be an observation worth making, because many people probably don't realize that to an Eastern European, an opening line such as "why do cops...?" sounds as familiar as the opening lines about changing lightbulbs sound to an English speaker, which is an interesting (if trivial) cultural fact.

The only way in which I did criticize your joke is by pointing out the apparently illogical connection between corruption and stupidity. You wrote, _"Have you ever seen any report of a crooked cop where the cop is being portrayed as anything other than base? There is no intelligence required to be corrupt when you are sanctioned by the State to carry weapons and have the power to summarily arrest."_ Well, what if it's only the really stupid ones who ever get caught, as I believe it to be the case? While intelligence might not be required to carry out the dirty work itself, it's certainly necessary to avoid detection.


----------



## .   1

Dear Atahulf,
Tone and phraseing are so difficult in this medium.
Thank you so much for taking the trouble to explain.
I was not understanding you properly even though you were doing your best.
I finally get it.  There is a huge range of "Why do cops....." jokes in Eastern Europe and I guess that there is a reason for this.  Now I get it.  How thick of me, it is now obvious.  Thanks for your patience.

This is enormously revealing to me and if I knew how to steer this conversation I would probably be able to learn something quite profound about a culture by finding what is the most common cop joke (that is another thread) in each country.

I suspect that a insightful review of contemporary humour would be far more revealing of a culture than the official census.

See ya mate and I hope you keep trying to pound intelligence into my thickish skull.

.,,

.,,


----------



## heidita

winklepicker said:


> What kind of joke?


 
Nice, winkle, I agree. What kind of joke? I can't see any.


----------



## loladamore

winklepicker said:


> What kind of joke?
> 
> Copist.


 
I think it should be spelt *coppist* to avoid any association with the verb 'to cope'. After reading the rest of the discussion, perhaps it should be qualified further and classed as *corrupt coppist*.


----------



## slare

As a spoken joke, I wouldn't find it particularly witty or original because: 1) it uses a pretty standard theme 2) it uses a very common joke format. 
However, as a written joke it's okay.
(Just my opinion ).


----------



## .   1

slare said:


> As a spoken joke, I wouldn't find it particularly witty or original because: 1) it uses a pretty standard theme


What is the theme of this particular joke?

.,,


----------



## slare

. said:


> What is the theme of this particular joke?
> 
> .,,


According to your own words:

_You have hit the nub of the joke.
It is specifically about corrupt cops._


----------



## .   1

Is there a theme of jokes that deals specifically with the association of corruption and stupidity when applied to the wielding of executive power?

Could you give me an example of such a joke or perhaps a link to a list of them?

.,,


----------



## slare

No two jokes are exactly the same.

"Knock knock" - "Who's there?" - "Doctor" - "Doctor Who?"- "You just said it".

I bet you couldn't give me an example of another joke which deals specifically with what happens when a time-travelling alien from the planet Gallifrey whose surname is the same as the interrogative pronoun you'll use to ascertain his identity (when he knocks on your front door), and in doing so unintentionally mention his name before he actually tells you it. But there are loads of silly jokes that use the "Knock knock" format with the punchline being just a simple play on words, i.e: like that one.

Jokes about the police being crooked are not uncommon. Jokes that use the format: three people from a certain group, A =..., B =...., C = [punchline] are not exactly rare either, regardless of whether they are just making a silly jibe or an insightful social comment.

Combine the theme and format mentioned above and you've got something like your joke, although as you've written it makes it a bit more original.



slare said:


> (Just my opinion ).


----------



## .   1

Most 'blond' jokes are the same.  Blonds are cute but stupid.
Most Polish jokes are the same.  Polish people are strong, silent and not the brightest spanner in the tool box.
I now know that there is a plethora of stupid cop jokes but these have thrusts that are totally at odds with my joke.  There is a stab at totalitarianism or greed or thuggery or lies or stupidity.
My joke could be rewritten slightly but it would remain exactly the same despite the rewrite.

Why do corrupt cops hang around in groups of three?









Because the first one can usually read...









and the second one can generally write but









the
fourth
one
can
not
c
o
u
n
t

.,,


----------



## TRG

Try to imagine Jerry Seinfeld, Billy Crystal, or Chris Rock telling the joke; "Why do corrupt cops hang around in groups of three?" As comedy, it doesn't work. Maybe it's because if we know they are corrupt we automatically assume they are stupid, or maybe it's too contrived. When the cops are identified as corrupt it removes a certainly element of surprise that this kind of joke is supposed to have. If this is original joke, my advice would be, don't give up your day job. But don't listen to me, because most people find me humor impaired.


----------



## .   1

Thanks for your advice but I would advise you to not give up your night job.
You're not kidding you're humour impaired.
Those three couldn't tell such a joke.
Their humour relies on elaborate setups and observational asides.  They don't do jokes, they do sketches.

This joke would be told by Ronnie Corbet or Ronnie Barker or Dick Emery or Dave Allen or any of an endless parade of Music Hall and Vaudeville performers.
The responses fascinate me because I (mistakenly) thought that corruption would be the focus of the joke.

I seriously misjudged the zeitgeist.
I assumed that everyone would know that being an honest cop brings rewards far beyond the financial so that any cop who would engage in corrupt behaviour thus jeopardising such a marvelous vocation is stupid beyond belief.  I tried to construct a joke that would show that corruption follows stupidity and it is still hillarious in my mind but no one else gets the joke.  This is a bit sad for me because it makes me understand that people do not know that being an honest cop brings pleasures that simply can not be purchased.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

I have deliberately waited four days before replying so as not to upset or offend the original poster.

The question presupposes that the 'joke' is a joke.
I personally don't find it funny.

The 'gag' could be used about three members of any supposedly 'dim' grouping - cowboy builders, train-spotters or even blondes, and it still wouldn't be funny.

As for Dave Allen telling it - I doubt it. And definitely not The Two Ronnies. They didn't tend to do what you call 'music-hall' and what I class as comic & stooge gags.


----------



## heidita

maxiogee said:


> The question presupposes that the 'joke' is a joke.
> I personally don't find it funny.


 
That's what I thought.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> I have deliberately waited four days before replying so as not to upset or offend the original poster.


Thank you.  The problem with that, as with comedy, is the timing.



maxiogee said:


> The question presupposes that the 'joke' is a joke.
> I personally don't find it funny.


So is it a joke or not?  Is it just an unfunny joke?



maxiogee said:


> The 'gag' could be used about three members of any supposedly 'dim' grouping - cowboy builders, train-spotters or even blondes, and it still wouldn't be funny.


So you are able to take a joke, that you hedge your bets on by questioning its status as a joke, then you are able to divine the concept of the joke, that you don't find funny' and then transpose it into various scenarios so that you can say that it isn't funny there either.  That is the most outrageously egotistical leap of logic I have read for sometime, unless, of course, it is a joke, that I missed, in which case it is hillarious, but I didn't get it. 



maxiogee said:


> As for Dave Allen telling it - I doubt it. And definitely not The Two Ronnies. They didn't tend to do what you call 'music-hall' and what I class as comic & stooge gags.


You tagged me on The Two Ronnies.  _Mea culpa_.

Thanks for your contribution.
You have been a brick.

.,,


----------

