Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Laughter is a fear response. That is why when two guys are going nose to nose, one will submit by smiling. That is why people giggle when they are uncomfortable. That is why good humor touches a nerve. Or, as Homer Simpson would say, "its funny because its true."
Laughter comes from a place of discomfort.
You level may be lower than some. That is a matter of taste.
The only "appeal" of offensive humor is that the antisocial morons who've felt "constrained" all their lives to not express hateful or offensive views in polite company have found an outlet through which they can finally have their beliefs validated. The "shows" that the offensive comics perform also give like minded people a "safe space."
Case in point: Andrew Dice Clay. Clay was literally performing a character that was based on racist goombahs. There were no "jokes" in his act, because the whole point of that act was to make fun of those Jersey Shore/Brooklyn types. But the goombahs felt so validated by the racist stuff his character was saying that they became his biggest fans. They thought, "Oh, wow, he's so funny for saying what we all think."
Same thing with all these other acts. When whats-his-face ranted that he'd kill his son if he found out he were gay, where was the "joke?" It's not a joke. It's a statement. But people liked the "joke" because it was validating what many of them were thinking and were too afraid to say in public. And they laughed out of "delight" that finally someone had the guts to validate their feelings, not because they thought the "joke" was funny.
I suppose it all depends upon one's criteria of what they consider offensive. Personally, I prefer a comedian who can deliver a joke without using highly personal attacks on others. Yet in today's society, a comedian who bases jokes upon clean, non-personal attacks is becoming more difficult, and more rare. The more we accept disparaging remarks against others as okay, the more difficult it becomes to not be part of a society that constantly judges and belittles.
One thing I don't care for are comedians who use a constant barrage of heavy obscenities in their act, relying upon crude language to carry otherwise lame jokes. For these types of comics, I only see them as desperate, with no real ability to entertain an audience beyond "I used the F-word and the C-word 145 times, and it worked...they laughed". Entertainment? Not to me. That's a lazy person's way of trying to get a laugh, and all it does is make the entertainer look rather pathetic.
However, far worse are comedians who will attack anyone in order to get something to pass as a joke. Attacking moral character, mocking or attacking the disabled (even a certain "head of state" did this, and of course later denied ever doing so), attacking people affected by tragedy (justifying it with "oh what...too soon?")...on and on...to me is, at the very least, in extremely poor taste. And the more it is done, the more acceptable it becomes to society in general. Go onto any social media website and you will find a majority of people more than willing - even eager, lying in wait, so to speak - to attack and tear down someone else for holding an opinion that differs from their own, with some going so far as to wishing the other person would die. When did this become acceptable? When did it become the norm? I do believe that while comedians who attack others in the name of comedy may not have started the trend, it certainly does contribute to it. And it says a lot about how little we have truly progressed.
When did this become acceptable? When did it become the norm? I do believe that while comedians who attack others in the name of comedy may not have started the trend, it certainly does contribute to it. And it says a lot about how little we have truly progressed.
I put the blame squarely on Howard Stern and Joan Rivers. They were the two biggest comedic celebrities who popularized this vicious, hate-filled mindset of "there's no such thing as being offensive." This mindset was created in the 1980s as a backlash to political correctness.
But it does bother me when a performer can't seem to do anything else. Is it that "gross" and "insensitive" jokes are the only way to get laughs anymore? I hate being one of the only people not laughing, but honestly I don't get it. I really don't.
yes, they have a word for it, but most people seem to not know of it
schadenfreude, means getting pleasure from someone's misfortune or something like that
comes down to jealousy, their lives aren't where they want it, so they kick people down out of frustration
Laughter is inextricably linked to discomfort. And, yes, various clinical studies have demonstrated this.
Let's take All in the Family. Archie's racism was humorous because, by that period in time, it had become widely unacceptable and it made the audience - well, most of it, anyway - uncomfortable to his diatribes about the blacks or Jews. Earlier in American history, that humor would have fallen flat because his statements would have just been interpreted as normal observations by almost everyone. Or the flushing of the toilet. Classic 'bodily function' humor. It was pushing the envelope at the time. Archie disappears upstairs and ten minutes later we hear a flush. That's just another way of saying "Archie just pooped!". That's something that is just not said, so it unsettles us. In so doing, it triggers laughter.
Another example is Planes, Trains and Automobiles. Remember the scene where Steve Martin has the f-bomb-flinging breakdown at the car rental booth? That discomforts us, for several reasons. First, it's socially unacceptable. This unacceptability is reinforced by how Martin's character has been established as uptight and reserved, not at all given toward such things. Second, the reaction of the agent as well as the bystanders underscores the unacceptability of such a rant. These cues are all telling us to be uncomfortable. Our reaction? Laughter.
Now, you might respond that such instances are all right and that you just don't like 'excessive' offense in humor. Well, the only definition of 'excessive' is 'more than I (or you) happen to like'. My grandmother would have found Steve Martin's profanity appalling. Therefore, it was 'excessive'. To her. But why is her standard more important than yours? Or yours more important than hers? Of course, neither are.
People who try and convince themselves that whatever degree of offense in humor than they find acceptable is normal, and that others who find greater offense in humor are wrong (or lazy - that's a classic, and absurd, excuse floated out there) need to stop being so self-absorbed.
The appeal of humor is that it funny. Whether or not it is offensive does not influence that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
