>>64
It's a pity that you didn't just stick to the original line of your post here. Then, at least, it would have been perfectly clear that you just have no capacity to understand or even perceive humour and your readers could have just felt pity for you instead of annoyed contempt.
But no, you were worried that if you just left it at the point where it looked like you thought that a guy who said that a prostitute was asking him for money because she'd read Karl Marx's "Grundrisse" was being SERIOUS, then that might mean it was YOU who'd been "owned" in the end - so you just had to go on and pretend that you DO have the ability to attach some meaning to the term "wit".
Predictably, though, you immediately fuck THAT up as well and demonstrate after all, even more clearly, that you really are completely clueless as regards what it might mean to look on the world, and on oneself, with the gentle eye of irony and humour.
"Is anyone's 'wit' that far out of touch?" you ask. The answer to that question is: Yes. Just about EVERYONE who has given the world the gift of genuine wit and humour has done so by SHOWING to the world a personality who was "out of touch with reality". Not, of course, by actually BEING such a personality. If Oliver Hardy had REALLY BEEN a preening, self-regarding, officious, petty bully, and if Stan Laurel had REALLY BEEN a dim, intimidated, pliable lackey prone to bursting into fits of self-pitying tears they could never possibly have PORTRAYED these types so amusingly and enduringly on screen.
Humour, in other words, is essentially ABOUT self-delusion, ABOUT being "out of touch" - but it is also, of course, the act par excellence of self-delusion's overcoming, since one is never LESS deluded about something - i.e. about the fact that one IS being cynically exploited and that there IS no "emotional connection" between you and the person exploiting you - than when one exaggerates this situation - by making absurdly pompous references to Karl Marx and T.S: Eliot, for example - and invites people to laugh about it.
But you really can't understand any of this, can you? Your life is far too dominated by the terrible constant fear that was instilled in you by God knows what sort of miserable loveless childhood - the fear of being "owned", the fear of being made to look "weak" or "foolish" or "needy" - that it is simply inconceivable to you that ANYONE could EVER do what ALL real humourists have in fact ALWAYS done and WILLINGLY and OPENLY expose one's own vanities for people to share a smile with one over.
From my side, I have to admit, I can almost understand this total incomprehension of what is "other" to one in the sphere of humour and laughter. I can't - and really don't want to - imagine the process which triggers the reaction which passes for laughter in YOUR case. You see someone stronger physically or verbally humiliating someone weaker, I suppose, and a sort of mirthless, rhythmical chimpanzee screech issues from your jaws as a sign of relief and jubilation that the humiliation is being inflicted on someone else today and not on you.
That, I suppose, is what YOU would accept as "wit" and "humour", as it certainly fulfils your condition of not being "out of touch with reality".
It would be semantics to argue about which is the correct usage of the term, yours or mine. But it's clear, at least, that we just don't speak the same language.