Offense in comedy

Offense in comedy

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
Thank Tree16Thanks

This is a discussion on Offense in comedy within the The Art Museum forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; This is a subject that comes up in a rather general question but I'm wondering to specific areas to help ...

  1. #1

    Offense in comedy

    This is a subject that comes up in a rather general question but I'm wondering to specific areas to help sort out how we might think about offense in comedy.
    This being a result of watching: Bill Burr Brilliantly Explains the Context of Offensive Language (with support from Colin Quinn) - go youtube it, only allowed 5 vids in one post.

    Three things come to mind:
    Hurt Vs Harm
    The importance of context
    The relevance of intent

    With hurt Vs harm, there is a different in that one can be hurt but it leave no significantly enduring nor measurable harm to you psychologically or physically. Sure you got really distressed over that one thing but in time that dissipates, it didn't render you permanently damaged.
    From this alone, I think it sets a standard in which there can't be restrictions beyond social restriction, we aren't going to impose any binding beyond the approval of the audiences. Because there's no harm, but at the same time one can keep hurting someone and do no harm but we'd still find it morally wrong to some degree. So the person who seeks to actively harm someone, we end up with various opinions about the legitimacy of such attacks.
    Some might be like it's not okay to insult anyone at all out of principle, whilst others might shift to, they spoke shit or disrespected me so fuck them or the other end, I can blast anyone I want.
    What makes this interesting is watching comedians like Frankie Boyle who actively insults his audience, people go to his shows knowing that's what he does. It's a kind of thing where you give shit to mates except slightly different, its a intimacy between performer and audience but it is on the front of it highly aggressive and nasty. Yet thats why a lot of people enjoy going to his show presumably, they love him for that shocking insulting scathing humor.
    So in this, we tend to emphasize that the audience decides what comedy they want to experience and watch, to which some people don't find Boyle to their taste in which case they don't have to pay money to see him.

    Now to context, it shapes comedy and I think Frankie Boyle makes an interesting point in the nature of offense when it lacks content, where an offensive word is defended by the BBC but content with uncomfortable subject matter is deemed offensive and worthy of censorship.

    Basically that someone like Jeremy Clarkson's offensiveness lacks context and so he wasn't hammered for it. He says nonsense and then ends it with the word nigger, but what is more grating to some groups is offense that touches on really fucked up real world stuff. Like a joke that is political and makes fun of something like kids in the middle east would be better off pretending to be African animals because that way if they got shot, the western world would be up in arms about their death. A point that critiques the manner in which human life is devalued whilst we rant on about the lion that dentist killed and the Gorilla that was shot in the zoo. One can still maintain that such life is important and care about animals, but its useful to portray the manner in which they get attention but humans don't.

    To the first video, there is a point of context related to the use of certain words. This I find very interesting and it touches on intent. So Bill Burr brings up points about the use of the word faggot, a term that by itself is readily seen as homophobic to homosexual men. For Bill, he emphasizes the way in which it is distant from that term, it becomes a kind of insult in a context where he was uncomfortable and acknowledges weakness in men being open about being hurt and so kind of pushes back when someone was being nice to him helping him up by calling them a faggot and telling them to back off.
    What this makes me think of is how words can have quite different connotations and meanings to people, the word is the same but the manner in which it is interpreted is different.
    The Racially Charged Meaning Behind The Word 'Thug' : NPR
    What is interesting though I see Bill's point and I don't think I even care to oppose his use of it because it's used in such a context and he would defend it as having no intent of being homophobic in that he himself doesn't maintain homophobic beliefs in opposition to homosexuals and their rights.
    A great example of how the word is used to an end that doesn't denigrate a group directly is in Rick and Morty making commentary on the use of the word retard.
    But the origins of the term and its cultural connotations is the sort that is a devaluation of feminity and is used to infer lesser status to men. An interesting point being that certain demographics have slang titles which are used to denigrate people. So people call other sissies, bitches, fags, thugs, retards. Words that I would assume one can readily connect to what demographic is being spoken about, whether its lesser status of femininity/women, of being non-white, of being unintelligent/intellectually disabled, being non-heterosexual.

    So it would seem a point is that, though one uses it outside of its original context, does this mean the word itself is fundamentally different? Like here in Australia, when me and friends get drunk we regularly call one another cunts casually. To my friends, the term has different connotations to the person who has experienced being called a stupid cunt because they were assertive and stood up in some circumstances and they were dismissed in this way out of anger towards them.
    Rick and Morty's commentary makes an interesting point in a neutral use of the word retarded, which was what was used for what is now called intellectually disabled because of the bad connotations of the past word which is the true form of political correctness, a white washing of words. The tension I see is one of intent and I wonder whether that is relevant and to what degree.

    Like, I don't have the same connotations in mind with the word nigger as someone raised in the US would, certainly not a black person in America. But because it feels lighter of a word in Australia, even in their awareness of it being offensive word, if I went spouting that off as if I wasn't being reckless, I imagine one would readily realize I was a fool for thinking that it wasn't going to piss some people off. So here, while we might imagine that a person could truly not have the intent to harm, we might suggest that they have the expectation and responsibility to not be so reckless in hurting other people. So an emphasis on the outcome, and thus intent is discarded. You didn't intend to hurt someone emotionally or what ever, but did out of reckless naivety to the connotations of the word.
    BUt then we have interesting dynamics in which the word nigger has a tension within itself in the black community. Where Chris Rock said on Inside the Actor's studio said how the word nigger was used for artistic expression, to take its venom and to change it.

    But someone like Richard Pryor goes onto really criticize the use of it by anyone.

    And then you have someone like Lenny Bruce who speaks to how he thinks one can take away that venom, that by not speaking it empowers it it with its offense.

    All of this an interesting dynamics of a word that is seen as bring to surface awareness of white supremecy in the history of the US and to the present day.

    Which reminds me of how the word wog here was used to insult Greeks, Italians and people from that part of Europe. Which then became a means of strong identity, many of that area in terms of ancestry identify as being wogs confidently, not letting themselves be a means of insult. Which emphasizes the individuals capacity to negotiate the matter in which they interact with the word, awareness of the venom in the history and the intent when someone really says it to hurt.
    Such as Reginald D Hunter speaks to his desire to not be offended by such a term, well not not be offended but perhaps more not seek to let it make him angry.
    Reginald D. Hunter - Offensive Words
    But in intending to harm someone, it certainly can be offensive even if the word used in itself isn't offensive, the desire to hurt you pisses one off to. In all of this get someone like Zizek you speaks of political correctness as a false means of improving things and instead just self discpline, it doesn't improve racial, gender, disability equality/standards in a society. That there can be a reason to argue against someone being an asshole, but thats as far as it can go, where ones speech seeks to discuss and press against anothers.

    Which also brings me to the thought of why are comedians so thoroughly targeted as the purveyors of cultural influence? That even if one got comedians to stop saying nasty words for example, I'm not sure it would do much, in the vein of what Zizek asserts that it doesn't improve things and is only self discipline. To which Zizek makes an interesting point in political corrrectness being a sort of veneer to the reality. The example he uses is that of being friendly with your boss, who might have a good relationship but at the end of the day they are your boss, that is the fundamental relationship one has no matter what shine one puts over it. So in a country like mine and the US there is an aversion to the mention of class, all working class are apparently middle class no matter how fucking poor they are. Yet in England, they are a lot more explicit in their class system, which means there's one less hurdle for people to jump over in recognizing the state of their society and power relations, one that is clearly class based. But at the same time, there's no doubt that many people who have that stuff shoved in their face are aware of these things, some more than others, they don't need to be called a racial slur to be aware that the society is hostile towards them in some degree. So in some sense, one isn't under an illusion, but not having it shoved in your face makes existence more bearable as you're not being persistently hurt. But then, then again, is the pain really gone, because not being explicit about class and racial stuff, though not needing it to be offensive all the time, doesn't do away with the reality. Like for all the emphasis on the US being PC and such, there's no doubt that people are being called niggers or as the NPR article above, thugs where people go on to argue that they don't mean it with racial connotations in a racially charged context such as a police shooting.

    This is just a ramble, but I think it might be some interesting considerations.
    To what extent does context become relevant to whether something is offensive, is it just the word, is it the intent to harm, is it the sensitivity of the context, is it varying degrees of all based on the demographics involved and their background and understanding of such a word through their lived experiences.
    The general sense I have is that we can criticize someone when we think they're being an asshole, the sort of person that is recklessly hurting people and their defense is flimsy like 'just being honest'. But at the same time, we certainly need some sort of limit where we might understand that something can be risky and hurtful but it's not just shut down. In fact, many of these things seem negotiated, if someone was bothered by something and expressed it then you consider for their sake that you would stop, because it would become clear that you keep doing it because you've made a habit from it or you are willfully being inconsiderate.
    To which we would just as readily defend someones ability or right to be an asshole to some extent, that they can't persistently seek out and harass someone, but that depending on the context may not really cut off all ties with them. Though some positions evoke greater basis for consequences than others based on what one signifies.

    So in the end, how do you navigate offensiveness? What are the things and on what basis, do you persist inspite of it rustling people the wrong way? What makes something feel defensible? I imagine it's things like assertions that it is the truth and that one feels justified in stating their belief. To which a discussion could ensue to the validity of that which isn't a magic bullet as we can all be pretty stubborn in our world view.
    These sort of considerations seem to exist even in terms of moderation on this site, that there is no clear line that makes that role easy. Someone could get away with using nasty word here and there, others for a lack of nasty words are able to say terrible shit and be accepted. Which is a point Bill Burr makes that it allowed those with truly prejudice thoughts and intentions to navigate offense by avoiding those charged words. So someone who uses dog whistle politics for example, which to me seems intuitively more problematic because of their beliefs and intent than the person whose intent is benign and they are simply reckless in their words.
    Last edited by Wellsy; 11-17-2016 at 08:27 AM.

  2. #2

  3. #3
  4. Remove Advertisements

  5. #4

    And my thought is that the sting of some words, the negative connotations is a reflection not simply of attitudes but attitudes derived from the current state of how groups relate to one another. As such, changing terms doesn't resolve the problem, its a censorship that can sometimes cover up the reality of such an existing conflict/tension in society that is left unresolved, language itself becomes sanitized to help forget of the real problems.
    If the "matter" of social reality is "language," then changes in this reality can best be brought about by changing the constituents of that reality — namely, signs. Therefore, politics as collective action for emancipation is abandoned, and politics as intervention in discursive representation is adopted as a truly progressive politics.
    But the empirical fact that reality is mediated by language in no way means, as Engels and others have argued, that it is produced by language. Social relations and practices are, in other words, prior to signification and are objective. The subjugation of women, then, is an objective historical reality: it is not simply a matter of representation by self-legitimating discourses. The extraction of surplus labour is an objective social reality in class societies and all social difference are produced by it, whether directly or through various mediations. Transformative politics depends on such a view of reality since if there is no objective reality there will be little ground on which to act in order to change existing social relations. Transformative politics, in other words, does not simply "redescribe" the existing social world through different discourses as does ludic politics (e.g., see Rorty, Contingency 44-69), but rather acts to change the "real" social, economic — the material conditions of the relations of production exploiting women and determining our lives.
    Moreover, the working of postmodern capitalism has literally affected "everyday" life in U.S. and European cities (homelessness, crime in neighbourhoods devastated by unemployment, abandoned children ... ). In the face of such conditions, the idea of progressive politics as simply a question of changing representations and problematising the "obvious" meanings in culture has become too hollow to be convincing.

  6. #5

    What is interesting about Bill Burr is that he is extremely skilled at addressing the discomfort that can arise when he makes certain statements. The latest show I saw him in, he made me a bit uneasy bashing some Democrats in one bit, but I still appreciated good points he made about hypocrisy. It was good for laughs, although I still feel a bit uncomfortable about him taking just that stance when it came to politics. I'm overthinking it, because he has also torn down rednecks etc.

    I'm a huge fan, but my point is he's leaving himself wide open for his material to get misused. Just look at this huge debate atm with John Cleese saying London isn't English anymore. He corrected himself later meaning English charm leaving for money-grubbing culture, but his quote has already been picked up by racist groups. I give him the benefit of the doubt, but influence should never be underestimated.

    Frankie Boyle is good, but I like him a bit less because he fires a lot of cheap shots.

  7. #6

    Wellsy thanked this post.

  8. #7
  9. #8

    The more offensive it is the more I laugh. Aside from the ones already listed... I like Iliza Shlesinger, The Original Kings or Comedy, Bill Burr, Joe Rogan, Lisa Landry, Kevin Hart, Katt Williams, Anjelah Johnson..... I could keep going
    Last edited by ENIGMA2019; 06-23-2019 at 03:52 PM.

  10. #9

    I think punching up instead of punching down is always a safe route to go. If something is going to be offensive and it's punching down, it better be fucking funny and worth laughing at. Otherwise I'll feel like a cunt for laughing and I won't appreciate the pure shock value of it.
    Wellsy thanked this post.

  11. #10

    I personally am almost entirely focused on the intent which I read from another, and very, very few 'unintentional' offenses can really shake or bother me. I can't even think of an example at the moment, though I suppose that.. there have been times when others have put me or someone else down, as a way to prop themselves up temporarily, like as a form of social currency or whatever.. and even then I can feel that it's usually not a truly malicious, personal attack.. but more out of an internal deprivation, insecurity and defense mechanism which brings such focus to that individuals need, rather than the collateral damage, so that the harm inflected on others is slightly hazy and hanging just around the peripheral, not directly realized.

    I think there may be a connection between Fi and Fe, focusing on intention vs context/social sensitivity. I've noticed that a number of my Fe buds not only don't give a shit about intention, but will even go so far as to say 'who knows what the true intent is, how could I know or be sure of that? Such person *should know* that is not socially acceptable.' So, they are less strong it seems, In deciphering ones deeper, personal motivations, and as such better at establishing specific guidelines of behavior and communication? I dunno.. it's just a thought.

    I get into trouble when I assume/project that others can read my intentions as well as I believe I can others (though I know this can easily break down, with people saying 'but how do you ever really know? You aren't in others head space, feeling what they feel!') and, that in itself is a very complicated, tedious topic which I've gone the rounds before on, and don't care to right now) so I throw particular expressions or taunts around, mistakenly believing someone is 'on the same page'.

    I love Bill Burr, hilarious.
    And that isn't because I agree with all of even most of his opinions or narratives, it's because he honors his own unique story, he has conviction in expressing his narrative without doubt, without fear, without shame. Or, even when he feels those things, he can be honest about that struggle, about reconciling various conditionings and beliefs he's absorbed, how those things effect the way he sees the world and must reconcile social changes. This is why Bill Burr is so great, because he's authentic... he changes with the times but it's an organic movement, he's not going to change his feelings and narratives unless that shit really makes sense to him, he will not 'buy into' being a way because others say so. I love that, those who can honor who they are, where they come from, the conditionings, values, life experiences, etc. that have shaped them.. I love people who will not devalue their own roots no matter what 'new' or 'progressive' the ideas of the times may be.
    Last edited by ultracrepidarian; 06-23-2019 at 10:37 AM.
    napkineater and Aridela thanked this post.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [ISTP] As far as comedy goes, do you like slap stick comedy?
    By Sensational in forum ISTP Forum - The Mechanics
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-18-2015, 12:34 PM
  2. Best non comedy moment in a comedy
    By SirDave in forum General Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-20-2013, 06:11 PM
  3. [ESTP] Your favorite comedian,comedy show, comedy troupe?
    By Brian1 in forum ESTP Forum - The Doers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-13-2012, 04:23 AM
  4. I take offense to you taking offense
    By Gengbanghis Khan in forum General Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-13-2009, 05:31 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0