by Ray Karaczun
Part Six
I don’t fully agree with my own last post. Humor is definitely a great starting point to grab peoples’ attention and get them talking, but the thought of people being completely reluctant to discuss important topics unless they are presented in a lighthearted and comforting way seriously disappoints me. I know this is rich coming from me in a series dedicated to comedy, but can’t people take things seriously? To further emphasize, a 2015 study found that people take humorous PSAs less seriously because they get the impression that the issue discussed is not important.
I also wanted to incorporate this John Cleese quote in my last post: “If I can get you to laugh with me, you like me better, which makes you more open to my ideas. And, if I can persuade you to laugh at a particular point that I make, by laughing at it you acknowledge it to be true.” It so perfectly describes my point about sliding social justice into jokes that preach the opposite– only, when you know that John Cleese is transphobic and has made many transphobic jokes, the quote suddenly has the exact opposite meaning of what it meant to me. It’s hard to ignore trends of offensive humor comedians being genuinely prejudiced, like Roseanne Burr, and of course, Dave Chapelle.
As implied throughout this series, offensive humor is an opportunity to share alternative perspectives and respond to the status quo. Whether it is spreading equality or hate, it is always spreading information. Comedy meant to challenge stereotypes is great, but if the audience is not already familiar with their existence, they are learning new prejudices. Prejudiced norm theory explains that people tend to internalize humor meant to confront bias, ironically becoming tolerant of it. A series of three studies conducted in 2017 found that confrontational humor can get perceived as disparaging, which means that it accidentally reinforces what it is trying to oppose.
These are all valid counterarguments that I can’t, nor want to, rebuttal. So instead, I will argue that the benefits of preserving and effectively using offensive humor trumps its side effects.
When you refuse to use offensive humor because you do not want to upset anyone, you have to cater to everyone’s opinions on what is offensive. As explained in the first post, there is no universal definition of offensive. Censoring everything that could possibly be considered offensive is unachievable and ironically will stir up more controversy. This is the exact issue that platforms like YouTube and TikTok are having now. Take I can’t believe you’ve done this, a meme where a young man named Paul Weedon under-reacts to getting punched in the face. Judging by Paul’s reaction, he was not physically hurt, and drawing conclusions based on the fact that he uploaded the video himself, he was not emotionally hurt. Nonetheless, YouTube took this famous video down for violating their violent and graphic content policy, meaning that a short clip of a guy getting punched once and remaining uninjured was grouped with content depicting “footage of corpses with massive injuries, including severed limbs.” Categorizing this clip as “violent and graphic” illustrates that the line defining words like “offensive” never gets drawn, only pushed back further and further until eventually there will be nothing left. This is an example of YouTube’s ongoing attempt to turn their platform squeaky clean. The problem with making all their content appropriate for everyone is that it is no longer appealing to everyone. The decision faced so much backlash from Paul Weedon and other people online YouTube caved and reinstated it. Censoring controversial content can potentially erase educational tools and history, too.
When you refuse to use offensive humor, offensive humor continues to exist. Comedy is an art form, and art is protected under the First Amendment freedom of speech. De-platforming speakers or censoring their content does not guarantee their silence; just look at the existence of reactionary apps like MeWe that started popping up when bigger social media platforms banned hate speech. If you do not use offensive humor to promote social progress, the only people left to utilize this art form are the ones who will use it to promote hatred; since you are sensitive to offensive humor and they are not. Think back to the third post which explained superiority theory. If you do not use your oppressor’s technique against them, how else will you stand up for yourself and fight back in a way they can understand?
When you refuse to use offensive humor, you take everything seriously. When you can’t laugh at yourself, your situation, or others, there is no relief. As we learned in the fourth post, tension builds up inside of us, and laughter releases that energy, easing us on a neurological and physical level. Also, art exists to express emotions, so why not use it?
David Segal says it best: “In a multicultural society like ours, humor is not a threat, it's critical support. It keeps us sane, and it's a useful safety valve. If we can't be cruel about each other in jest, we might end up being cruel to each other in deadly seriousness. The politically correct war against insensitive humor might end up generating the very social and racial tension it is trying to defuse.”
As we learned throughout this series, offensive humor is an art form and a tool that reduces stress, challenges the status quo and norms, unites us against our oppressors, keeps us in check, and creates an opportunity to discuss difficult topics in a more fun and easier way. The question is not can and should we eliminate offensive humor, but rather how will we use offensive humor? To spread hate, or to turn hate into a laughing matter?
Sources
Jaworski, M. (2021, September 30). “‘This is like if the Louvre just decided one day to chuck the Mona Lisa’: YouTube reinstates classic YouTube video after public outcry.” Daily Dot. https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/i-cant-believe-youve-done-this-video-reinstated-youtube/
McGraw, A. P., Schiro, J. L., & Fernbach, P. M. (2015). “Not a problem: A downside of humorous appeals.” Journal of Marketing Behavior, 1: 187-208. https://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/mcgrawp/pdf/mcgraw.schiro.fernbach.2015.pdf
Saucier, D. A., Strain, M. L., Miller, S. S., O’Dea, C. J., & Till, D. F. (2018). “What do you call a Black guy who flies a plane?”: The effects and understanding of disparagement and confrontational racial humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 31(1), 105. https://doi.org/10.1515.humor-2017-0107
Segal, D. (1992, May 11). Excuuuse me: the case for offensive humor. The New Republic, 206(19), 9. https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=e7dd462a-cf6a-40f6-87d2-43e093630499%40redis&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPXNzbyZzaXRlPWVkcy1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#AN=edsgcl.12226695&db=edsgis
YouTube Help (2022). Violent or graphic content policies. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802008?hl=en
Comments