Personality Cafe banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,147 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
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 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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,147 Posts
Discussion Starter #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.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/ebert.htm
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.
 

·
Registered
ENTJ
Joined
·
1,171 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,147 Posts

 

·
Code Cracked
Joined
·
7,650 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
686 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
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.
My Fe may be low but I'm definitely one of the Fe folk.

If what I want to say has a high chance of offending someone I just don't say it. We don't know everyone's backstory and where they're coming from. I'm only inappropriate with close friends, because I know for a fact I'm going to say some really insensitive shit if I let myself loose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,659 Posts
The way I see it offensive humor is just a extension of of dark humor. Some people don't like dark humor because it reminds them of unpleasant things, while for some dark humor is a way to make a little bit of peace with the unpleasantries of life.

Of course, to make light of a heavy subject it needs to be obvious to the listener that its not meant to be taken seriously. In other words it needs to be done in good taste otherwise it becomes too real. That's why offensive and dark humor is more socially daring/risky than other kinds of humor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
I like Frankie Boyle because he touches on subjects that the pc folk won't, but he's taking it a bit too far more often than not.

Then again, that's his signature style and I would pay to go see his stand up.

I think intent is important, but one has to bear in mind, whether the recipient of a light-hearted insult is offended or not is entirely up to them. No-one can dictate how you react to sh*t. Calling someone a retard may be meaningless or even funny to you, but not to my friend, Anna, who happens to have a child born with Down's syndrome.

I don't get why being a dick is so glorified in our society. Why is it so uncool to be kind instead? And I say this, whilst I'm calling my own friends cunts and use every incarnation of the word fuck imaginable.

I get it, it's cool; we feel as if we're more badass when we use 'bad' words. Idk I guess I'm getting too old for this, I just want to see people be nice to each other for a change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
The way I see it offensive humor is just a extension of of dark humor. Some people don't like dark humor because it reminds them of unpleasant things, while for some dark humor is a way to make a little bit of peace with the unpleasantries of life.

Of course, to make light of a heavy subject it needs to be obvious to the listener that its not meant to be taken seriously. In other words it needs to be done in good taste otherwise it becomes too real. That's why offensive and dark humor is more socially daring/risky than other kinds of humor.
Bitch, well said.
 

·
Code Cracked
Joined
·
7,650 Posts
There are certain comedians that do touch on sensitive topics but, it is a joke. Hence, why they are comedians. Now some of them like Kevin Hart does not tear down others in any way. Most of his standup is directed at his life and experiences. If you do not like a particular comedian or their standup do what I do...turn it off. Iliza Shlesinger is also one that may offend a lot of women but, she is direct and touches on many sensitive topics and does it from a different non sugar coated expression. One of my favs by her is

 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,473 Posts
I don't know a lot of female comedians, but the first one I think of is Margaret Cho, perhaps because she had a show when I was a kid and to me she's really the only real female comedian I can think of, at that time, to have a show? I'm probably forgetting, but she struck me as a comedian first.


I mean, I guess she's offensive too.

One thing that jumps out at me is self-deprecating humor. I feel like that helps to bring down audience defenses. You get defensive when you feel attacked or when you feel someone is attacking someone else, so if humor about typically 'offensive' topics where people often get attacked (such as sexuality, race, blah blah, probably socioeconomic class) is delivered in a way that's poking fun at one's own weaknesses, or even the audiences, I think it's sort of less 'offensive.'

And then you can also get into topics like race and ethnicity, and presenting 'racist' things as ridiculous sort of leads towards making fun of those views, rather than trying to beat up people because of their race.

Idk

But I guess this could go here since I'm pretty sure someone would find Margaret Cho offensive, between the jokes about race and the nudity, just in this skit alone.

Edit: I saw this interview where she talks a little bit about race and pc and people getting offended, who is racist. And I think she's joking, but I also think that self-deprecating humor that makes fun of one's own self in offensive ways does sort of force the audience to laugh at their own racism/sexism/etc. It shows it as ridiculous but not in an overly confrontational way like 'I know you have heard and perhaps made jokes about asian people eating dogs.' But it acknowledges that and also allows you to laugh about it, because ultimately it is a really ignorant way to look at other people, but we're all only human.

 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top