Can "punching down" humor ever work?

[Dr. Pepper]

I actually fucking love comedy and stand up comedy; and I do think most things are fair game; but I also think in the same vein anyone should be allowed to critique the jokes, take them apart and analyse them and call people out on their shit.

I don't agree with heckling and usually quite enjoy when a comedian cleverly takes down a heckler (didn't really find carlin's example funny at all tbh? i swear like a sailor so it's not that the swear words bother me it's just not funny)

I also think the best comedians can turn tired tropes and usually crappy jokes into hilarious ones, it's just that most punching down, to me, is mean-spirited, lazy and not funny.

I agree. Love comedy. Am able to find plenty of comedy that isn't about punching down. I've never really been to a show where there was heckling, or if there was, I think I assumed it was just a part of the show. Definitely would have thought differently if the comedian was suggesting that a penis be forcefully shoved down someone's throat. I don't find that sort of thing funny.

I'm just surprised that there are posters here who seem to think those of us who are don't find mean-spirited jokes funny are somehow humorless or, more annoyingly, don't 'get' comedy. It's like suggesting that if one doesn't like kicking dogs, then they just don't understand animals.

[HexMachina]

Well (especially in terms of performed comedy), only you have control of your emotional response.

It doesn't effect your income, lifestyle, or rights. Why be offended?

I'm referring to a post a few pages back, where someone was rejecting the notion of Victimhood altogether, not just in terms of comedy.

[HexMachina]

I agree. Love comedy. Am able to find plenty of comedy that isn't about punching down. I've never really been to a show where there was heckling, or if there was, I think I assumed it was just a part of the show. Definitely would have thought differently if the comedian was suggesting that a penis be forcefully shoved down someone's throat. I don't find that sort of thing funny.

I'm just surprised that there are posters here who seem to think those of us who are don't find mean-spirited jokes funny are somehow humorless or, more annoyingly, don't 'get' comedy. It's like suggesting that if one doesn't like kicking dogs, then they just don't understand animals.

It's the pranks thread all over again...

[peterbound]

I agree. Love comedy.

What's that saying about people who say they have a great sense of humor?

Oh ya… they don't.

Also, your post make me think about this Loius CK bit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PW6orbAoGc

[Raja]

It's the pranks thread all over again...

Don't know though, that thread seemed pretty united against pranks and the people who play them on friends. That certainly seemed to be the opinion of the majority, rather than the other side branding everyone else 'humourless'.

[Theda Baratheon]

I agree. Love comedy. Am able to find plenty of comedy that isn't about punching down. I've never really been to a show where there was heckling, or if there was, I think I assumed it was just a part of the show. Definitely would have thought differently if the comedian was suggesting that a penis be forcefully shoved down someone's throat. I don't find that sort of thing funny.

I'm just surprised that there are posters here who seem to think those of us who are don't find mean-spirited jokes funny are somehow humorless or, more annoyingly, don't 'get' comedy. It's like suggesting that if one doesn't like kicking dogs, then they just don't understand animals.

lol me too mate, seriously. i've got a bonkers laugh and i put it to good use....often. absolutely love comedy, love stand up, have been to see a fair amount of the biggest UK stand ups at the time and i love comedy TV shows (but i think theyre v different to stand up so not really worth mentioning as examples of this sort of humour as it doesnt work)

i just think a lot of punching down, as it comes from a place of inherent power over the subject of the joke, is just mean and not funny. i'm honestly fckin bewildered at eyenon's argument that if we don't laugh at these type jokes we'll never laugh at all...umm excuse me, i love to laugh and find a hell of a lot of things funny, but someone with some sort of ''power'' humiliating someone who didn't ask for it is just not one of those things. the DJ example is just horrid. and plays up to tired, hurtful and mean stereotypes of women and their appearance.

i'm not saying ALL examples of ''punching down'' are terrible, and honestly i think a lot of people in this thread have a lot of different definitions for this humour and of course there are some comedians who are brilliant and clever blah blah who can turn a tired trope upside down but a LOT of punching down jokes just aren't funny to me. *shrug*

i also don't think comedy is above or below being analysed either; i know that sounds a bit dumb because we just laugh instantly at what we find funny and ...well, i HAVE laughed at people falling over (not maliciously, and im usually one of the first ppl to rush over and offer help/assistance) so we can't really always help what we find funny in the moment like those audience members laughing at the tosh joke but i see nothing wrong with looking at certain forms of humour or types of joke, picking them apart and looking at them closely to see what might be funny or what might be ''problematic'' about them.

[eyenon15]

lol me too mate, seriously. i've got a bonkers laugh and i put it to good use....often. absolutely love comedy, love stand up, have been to see a fair amount of the biggest UK stand ups at the time and i love comedy TV shows (but i think theyre v different to stand up so not really worth mentioning as examples of this sort of humour as it doesnt work)

i just think a lot of punching down, as it comes from a place of inherent power over the subject of the joke, is just mean and not funny. i'm honestly fckin bewildered at eyenon's argument that if we don't laugh at these type jokes we'll never laugh at all...umm excuse me, i love to laugh and find a hell of a lot of things funny, but someone with some sort of ''power'' humiliating someone who didn't ask for it is just not one of those things. the DJ example is just horrid. and plays up to tired, hurtful and mean stereotypes of women and their appearance.

allow me to clarify, I think the vast majority of comedy has a victim of the humor, and that the vast majority of comedy can and is seen as offensive to someone.

if one is going to claim moral high ground as a reason for putting pressure on entertainers to change the way they entertain then they should support societal pressure on ANY and ALL entertainment that someone somewhere is offended by (this, imo eliminates almost everything)

I don't think there is anything especially moral about putting pressure on only the entertainers and entertainment forms that you are personally offended by.

if one cites moral high ground then there should be support to make sure no one is offended anywhere by anything in entertainment. Not just the things we personally don't like or are offended by.

And if that were to happen, If everything that anyone is offended by has been silenced by societal pressure, then imo there wouldnt be much music, movies, or literature to speak of.

And if I refuse to laugh at anything that is found offensive by someone then there would be nothing left for me to laugh at.

If I support putting pressure on a certain comedian to tone down their act because it's offensive to people then the moral thing to do would be to also have to support things like putting pressure on GRRM to tone down his writing style because some people are offended by it.

[Theda Baratheon]

1) i don't think most humour has a ''victim'' to be honest. 2) not claiming ''moral high ground'' by simply saying i think most jokes of the ''punching down'' kind are just not funny. *shrug*

[eyenon15]

1) i don't think most humour has a ''victim'' to be honest. 2) not claiming ''moral high ground'' by simply saying i think most jokes of the ''punching down'' kind are just not funny. *shrug*

I mean it's been suggested on the thread that there's a plan to create conditions that will make it very difficult for things that offend them to even exist.

not by banning or making anything illegal but by societal pressure. And morality was cited as reasoning.

I'm not sure how you stand on this sort of activism, sorry didn't mean to accuse you personally of taking a stance either way.

[TerraPrime]

Well (especially in terms of performed comedy), only you have control of your emotional response.

It doesn't effect your income, lifestyle, or rights. Why be offended?

You're not the one to come up with the idea, just the latest one to espouse it.

What this sentiment is saying is essentially a form of victim blaming.

To start, we know that literature, and by extension, theater, drama, music, etc., are all words. Yet, good words make us feel something, whether it's rage at the monstrous actions of Joffrey or enduring sympathy for Ann Frank hiding in the attic. People laugh and cry at operas, movies, songs, theater productions, and, hang on to your hat here because nobody would have guessed: at books. The entire premise of one indispensable part of human existence, theater and literature, is that words, when put right, elicit emotions.

So to say that words should not have the power to offend is just barking mad. So, what, words can have the power to inspire, like Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech, but they should not have the power to insult?

No, of course not.

So what is really being said in the line "words will never hurt us" is not that words ought not, or do not, have the effect of insulting us, but that the state of being insulted is a self-inflicted state.

That is what's so wrong about that line of thinking.

And almost always, the same type of people who would say this are never themselves free of the effects of insulting words. And, also, not surprisingly at all, the same people who themselves have emotional responses to certain phrases they find insulting (and if you've been around this forum long enough you know exactly which phrases will get Peterbound or Commodore going) are the ones to dismiss the complaint from others who have less social power to resist than they do. As an example, to Peterbound, of course being insulted by being called a pedohile doesn't affect a person's livelihood because, why should it? Unless, of course, you're a third-grade teacher who's openly gay. Or, even, if you ask Boy Scouts America, if you're a scout leader and openly gay. Or, really, if you're gay, period. But not being gay, and not having to deal with the negative impact of being perceived to be a pedophile by virtue of being gay, Peternbound is quick to dismiss the issue as something that doesn't affect your income or job.

Words have power, because humans are social animals that build inter-personal relations based largely on words and reactions to words. Bullying words have power because they alienate and ostracize. It's one thing to tell the recipients of these bullying words that these words won't have the effects intended, to alienate and to ostracize, because the speaker doesn't speak on behalf of the entire society, but quite another to tell these recipents that they shouldn't let themselves experience the intent of the speaker to alienate and ostracize them.

[Theda Baratheon]

@eyenon

i didn't read into kara's post what you obviously did then mate. what i read was that there's nothing wrong with picking apart and analysing jokes to see what makes them funny and to challenge problematic themes that appear in humour. humour may be able to get away with a lot of things that other medium's cant but i still think it's worth looking at some types of humour (ie punch downs) and highlighting what can be problematic with certain jokes (due to popular attitudes in society e.g womens looks being the most important thing to them) and challenge those things. excuse me if im not making sense i've been working on uni essays all day but all im saying is its not really helpful to just brand a whole group of ppl (those who arent too fond of punch down humour) as humourless.

[Theda Baratheon]

Words have power, because humans are social animals that build inter-personal relations based largely on words and reactions to words. Bullying words have power because they alienate and ostracize. It's one thing to tell the recipients of these bullying words that these words won't have the effects intended, to alienate and to ostracize, because the speaker doesn't speak on behalf of the entire society, but quite another to tell these recipents that they shouldn't let themselves experience the intent of the speaker to alienate and ostracize them.

Yep. Words are powerful; they craft great, motivational speeches, uplift people when we're feeling like shit and make others laugh, but words can also be used to harm, to bully, to discriminate and putting the responsibility on the ''victim'' to not be offended is just very narrow minded, i think.

and in terms of comedy i think the responsibility is on the COMEDIAN to MAKE the audience laugh; the responsibility isn't on the audience to simply laugh at whatever the comedian is saying.

[TerraPrime]

Re: humor

As with anything that reflects social values and normative standards, and comedy and jokes are one of these things, it's inane to suggest that we ought not be able to critique that. Freedom of creative expression is not the same as immunity from scrutiny.

The "piss Christ" art piece is rightfully scrutinized. I happen to support the message but I think it's right that people questioned its execution and the message.

Members of a society has the moral oblgiation to examine our collective behavior and our accepted norms, and that must include creative expressions, as well. The alternative is to keep silent over creative outputs that glorify all manners of despicale themes. So unless you're comfortable with staying quiet and uttering neither disagreement nor critique over any and all jokes, then it's a bit suspicious to suggest here that people ought not voice disagreement and critique on rape jokes.

[eyenon15]

@eyenon

i didn't read into kara's post what you obviously did then mate. what i read was that there's nothing wrong with picking apart and analysing jokes to see what makes them funny and to challenge problematic themes that appear in humour. humour may be able to get away with a lot of things that other medium's cant but i still think it's worth looking at some types of humour (ie punch downs) and highlighting what can be problematic with certain jokes (due to popular attitudes in society e.g womens looks being the most important thing to them) and challenge those things. excuse me if im not making sense i've been working on uni essays all day but all im saying is its not really helpful to just brand a whole group of ppl (those who arent too fond of punch down humour) as humourless.

I never called anyone humorless, I did say something about people not getting the comedy though.

I return to my Larry the Cable Guy, I don't think the guy is funny at all.

but the truth is that he IS funny, I see millions of people cracking up laughing at him.

I just don't get his comedy, for me to say that something not ever funny just because I personally don't understand the humor doesn't make sense. I'm not calling myself humorless just because I don't get his jokes.

The reality is that Larry IS funny as evidenced by the millions laughing at him, but he's just not funny to me.

[butterbumps!]

I mean it's been suggested on the thread that there's a plan to create conditions that will make it very difficult for things that offend them to even exist.

not by banning or making anything illegal but by societal pressure. And morality was cited as reasoning.

I'm not sure how you stand on this sort of activism, sorry didn't mean to accuse you personally of taking a stance either way.

way to keep missing the point.

You are just unbelievable. Laugh at punching down humor, for all anyone cares. But you do not have some inalienable right to be free from social judgment in doing so. Just because we have a right to free speech it does not mean that you also have freedom from being called a racist asshole after you post a highly racist screed. Your failure to grasp this concept, translated to comedy, is just astounding.

I'm the one who brought up "societal pressure," and morality was most certainly not cited as the rationale. Think of it as "market pressure," if that helps you feel less "oppressed."

[Theda Baratheon]

but it isn't as simple as simply ''not getting'' the humour and i think it isn't helpfull at all to just dismiss a group of people as ''not getting'' something.

butterbumps! made a rly interesting point earlier about exactly why would we laugh at something like the DJ joke and that it's akin to being a teenager and laughing at a bully's joke because the bully isn't mocking you and the laughter has relief tinged in with it. sorry if that's not exactly what you were saying butterbumps! i swear my reading comprehension has gone out the window at the moment, but i think a lot of us DO get the humour, it's just the humour CAN and OFTEN IT problematic we should be able to take it apart and challenge it.

[eyenon15]

way to keep missing the point.

You are just unbelievable. Laugh at punching down humor, for all anyone cares. But you do not have some inalienable right to be free from social judgment in doing so. Just because we have a right to free speech it does not mean that you also have freedom from being called a racist asshole after you post a highly racist screed. Your failure to grasp this concept, translated to comedy, is just astounding.

I'm the one who brought up "societal pressure," and morality was most certainly not cited as the rationale. Think of it as "market pressure," if that helps you feel less "oppressed."

no, someone brought it up before you did, and morality was cited as there reasoning.

once again, I never said that no one is allowed to judge me for what I find funny.

Ive made it very clear that everyone is allowed to have their opinion on it.

[TerraPrime]

I never called anyone humorless, I did say something about people not getting the comedy though.

When you said "not getting," you're implying that those who do not find a joke humorous don't understand it. That's not the case, usually. I understand why a racist or sexist joke is supposed to be funny, I just don't find humor in that attempt of the joke.

We get this all the time on this board. Someone will post something offensive, we will go delete and issue a warning, and they will come back saying that "it was just a joke" and we are "humorless Nazis." The truth is that I do get that it was supposed to be a joke, but that doesn't mean that it's not ALSO offensive and unacceptable, apart from whether the attempted joke actually elicited mirth or laughter.

[butterbumps!]

What claim is this exactly that I made about a Mensa joke?

and by "we" who is the "we" you are referring to?

@Theda-this is what I'm talking about, and you are accusing me of being the one who does this shit

what can possibly be your justification for getting so worked up over people (very fairly) criticizing the (prodigious) flaws in your arguments when these (egregiously abominable) arguments you keep attempting to make are about shaming people into not getting excited or protesting humor they find harmful and oppressive? By your own advocacy, shouldn't you be sitting there and taking it silently? What gives you the right to argue back on this?

[eyenon15]

When you said "not getting," you're implying that those who do not find a joke humorous don't understand it. That's not the case, usually. I understand why a racist or sexist joke is supposed to be funny, I just don't find humor in that attempt of the joke.

We get this all the time on this board. Someone will post something offensive, we will go delete and issue a warning, and they will come back saying that "it was just a joke" and we are "humorless Nazis." The truth is that I do get that it was supposed to be a joke, but that doesn't mean that it's not ALSO offensive and unacceptable, apart from whether the attempted joke actually elicited mirth or laughter.

well, yes I did imply that not getting a joke implies that one lacks understanding of why something made someone else laugh.

many posters have even said as much like "i don't get why that was funny"

If you are someone that fully understands every jokes intent and meaning, that's great. There are probably still other people that truly don't get it, much in the same way I don't get Larry the Cable Guy

it was never my intent to imply that myself or you or anyone is humorless for not getting a certain joke or type of humor.