Where do I draw the line in comedy?
Introduction
In general, when doing stand-up it's tricky trying to decide what is too far in terms of stating a joke. In general,
many claim the argument that if you don't want to hear it, don't attend the show. I disagree. If someone gives a hate
speech, I hope the majority would agree that's something to condemn; maybe not legally, but in terms of simply believing
that talking in such a manner is wrong to do. As a result, this argument is incomplete
General disclaimer: I don't intend for this to be a hard and fast rule, nor to I claim to be objectively correct in
this way of thinking. It's just a way of thinking that you may want to consider. And lastly, I don't push myself
close to this line in my own stand-up sets; it's not worth the risk. I just won't condemn any other comedian
who chooses to do so.
Context
This is fairly simple. If you intend on making a comedy show 'controversial' or extremely political, there are several
points at which you need to consider context. The most simple, perhaps, is reputation. If you have no reputation as a
comedian, you're a blank slate. You're relatively more free. If someone attends your first show, it is on them to be
tolerant to their highest degree. This is because, as I will later elaborate, there are jokes that some cannot tolerate,
of which type is commonplace in the world of comedy. If you disagree with that, that's fine. However, attending a comedy
show won't make them magically disappear.
I don't expect any Trevor Noahs or John Mulaney's to be reading this, but if you have any degree of
reputation as am uncontroversial comedian, then an abrupt change without any forewarning is a bad idea. That's not to say
non-controversial comedians can never be controversial, but it should be noted that, unless there is information about a
specific show stating that you are changing styles, it is your responsibility to ensure your audience knows what topics
your show will touch upon.
The other form of context is 'obvious' but more nuanced. In general, don't make cancer jokes in a room full of cancer victims,
or jokes about natural disasters in a city that has just experienced a natural disaster. Of course, I am not saying that
someone will be upset by your jokes, and I know many people who can (and can handle a) joke about a bad situation, but when
the sample size of people who have bad experiences with whatever you joke about is dramatically increased, your chances of
making someone (who's situation is extremely poor) a lot worse is bad. And some jokes don't come without risk, it's true.
And for some of those jokes the damage* is small enough to make it the audience's problem. However, for extreme cases, the damage
is far worse.
*Note I say damage, which is subjective to the individual. What I mean more specifically, is the average weight of the insult
the joke could cause, not the effect.
The Jokes
This is perhaps more nuanced, and I would like to reiterate that this is where I draw the (shaky) line; you may well disagree, but in general, it's within my right to disapprove. It's all to do with what makes the joke funny. The reason being that, in my opinion, the reason you find a joke funny reflects and reaffirms your view. When looking at this, it's important to realise that the reason that a joke is funny isn't the same as the content of the joke. Below is an example:
This is one of many race-based Jimmy Carr jokes. The racial theme/stereotype here is that different ethnic groups all look the same. Neither fact nor positive. Note how he has brought up the theme early on, albeit for a different race, before his 'long story' reaches its punchline. We'll get to why this is important but first let's take a look at why the punchline was funny. From my observation, it was funny for two reasons. The first is because of a subversion of expectation. Note that the joke had a strong focus on the comedy club owner's self-righteousness; the expectation is that the guy will say something in retaliation to the guy, however instead it gets thrown in his face by other means- irony, the second reason. The joke also had another thing going for it in that it set the theme earlier, creating a closure effect and an almost 'callback' to the beginning when delivering the punchline. In neither of those two cases is it strictly relevant or required to be racist or think racit thoughts. Below is an example of where it fails:
This one received a lot of media attention (I like to think that people subconsciously hold this criteria), and it's clear why. It's not inherently clear why this is funny. An argument can be made that there is subversion of expectation here in that 'but no-one ever talks about ____' is usually followed up with some positive justification to pay attention to something unspoken of. However, in the set-up, Carr spoke of the punchline being controversial, preventing a twist form occurring. This is where I take issue. Because intentional or not, the only way to enjoy this joke is if you have explicit negative bias towards a specific group. And when in a crowd, where you laugh along simply because of the delivery, or because others around you are laughing too, this can subconsciously normalise this opinion.
Misinformation
This is perhaps more relevant in LGTBQ+ based stand-up, where misinformation is more widespread. I do not believe that it is a comedian's duty
to deliberately avoid the use of misinformation to create a punchline; further they can use it to their heart's content (with caution that their
jokes land of course). I'd like to restate that this is where I draw the line in my opinion of other comedians; and not a line I intend on
nearing myself. The reason is because, unlike above, the entire prerequisite of a comedy show is that everything in it is fake. Subconscious
bias towards different groups is not refuted by this because it is not something you explicitly learn, it's something felt. However, information
is something you consciously gain. It is true that you can learn something subconsciously, but nothing can arise from subconscious knowledge
without you realising it.
Take, for example, the myth that goldfish are forgetful. If you explicitly think of information related to goldfish, and that comes up, it will
either have an unidentified source or will be remembered from a comedy show; neither of which will improve how much you believe in it. But perhaps
that isn't fair; what about negative stereotypes? Yes, you can subconsciously believe a stereotype and that can be (re)affirmed at a comedy show.
The reason is that in order for it to take root, it needs to be the part of the joke that makes you laugh; not irony, not subversion of expectation
etc. If the setup of the joke uses a stereotype, it is forgotten and dismissed as a means to an end/punchline. As a result, the above criterion
stands
