The Humour Club discussion

I'm curious as to what you think - when does humor go too far? I recently had a reviewer suggest that 50% of this book was clever and funny and 50% could possibly offend (which is never my intention). Now certainly some of my language can be distasteful, but there's a difference between distasteful and offensive (in my mind anyway). Where is the line? I know some comedians who can't play colleges these days because everything is too PC - have we gone too far? I am curious as to what you all think.

Michael wrote: "I'm curious as to what you think - when does humor go too far?..."

One man's prize poodle is another man's chow mein.

Humor was, is, and always will be subjective. So is offense.

Humor can be used deliberately to offend, but that is very rarely a comic's intention. Generally, their intent is to entertain, and just as some people prefer musicals to westerns, some people prefer not-PC humor to the bland, campus-approved, safe-space type enjoyed by the easily offended, who, more often than not, live in glass houses, and use run-on sentences.

Bottom line: Ask if your heart is pure. If it is, get it checked. It's supposed to be bloody. ;-)

When I was in college, we found a stray cat behind a Chinese food restaurant. Our lives were forever changed by Lo Mein and her nighttime meowing (and we had fewer mice in our fraternity house...but no fewer rats).

I will admit to not having much of a filter (thank goodness for my editors) so I’m not totally surprised that someone felt as if a scene (or two...or three) went a little too far but I do want to be sensitive to those who take offense to a well intentioned joke.

Thanks for taking the time to respond Jay.

The line is different for different people. We can't please them all. In the end we need to use our own judgement about whether we are offending enough people, too many or the goldilocks "just right".

If we try to please everyone there's a good chance our writing won't be funny. Humour needs a bit of an edge. But the counter is that if we annoy too many people then we won't get so many readers.

For instance I take a flexible approach to swearing. I have one series that might be read by children, so I deliberately turn down the cussometer. But I'm also writing an historical drama about working class miners where swearing is a part of life. Then I will include swearing because I reckon that the readers for the historical drama are less likely to include young kids.

If in doubt, go watch the Life of Brian. Offensive? Yup, to some people. Funny? Also yup, for some others. And for all I know there might be people who find it both funny and offensive.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

“Jehova!”

Michael wrote: "I'm curious as to what you think - when does humor go too far? I recently had a reviewer suggest that 50% of this book was clever and funny and 50% could possibly offend (which is never my intentio..."

50% offensive? You could up your game.
Cringing decreases stress hormones and improves your resistance to disease. It releases endorphins creating a sense of well-being.
I am offended by platitudes. They are cloaked daggers.
I am a nihilist wrapped in absurdism, so I offend people with great regularity. There are no side affects.

Brena, this will be my new daily affirmation. Thank you!

I have to agree with Will -- it's a judgement call based on your audience.

Classic example: While doing standup, I wouldn't use the same material in a nightclub that I would use in an old age home. And yes, you do filter your language depending on who's listening -- not dissimilar to normal speech -- you don't cuss in front of children, and you don't compliment a woman on her 'bazongas.'

On the other hand, comics that push the envelope are popular simply because they do. George Carlin's opening line for his #1 show and album: 'George Carlin: You Are All Diseased' was:

George Carlin: So, lemme ask ya something. How's everybody doing tonight, huh?
[audience cheers]
George Carlin: Good, well, *fuck you*! Just trying to make ya feel at home.

It's very often people on the fringe of the bell curve -- the social irritants -- that move society forward. This is as true in humor as it is in politics or any other profession. Societies without 'irritants' stagnate and die.

Also, getting arrested is a good indicator that you've gone too far.

Uncle George was a funny man.

Jay wrote: "One man's prize poodle is another man's chow mein.

Humor was, is, and always will be subjective. So is offense.
..."

I completely agree. If you look hard enough you can find someone offended by everything you've even done (including breathe). You have to set the line for yourself based on what you're willing to tolerate coming back to you from when you offend others.

Lisa wrote: "Jay wrote: "One man's prize poodle is another man's chow mein.

Humor was, is, and always will be subjective. So is offense.
..."

I completely agree. If you look hard enough you can find someone o..."

Have you noticed that people who really know you are least offended? They see all of you, and what you say is taken in a different context. Of course you don't get that with the casual reader, but many great writers of classic literature were considered highly offensive in their time.

I know people who are energized by being offended and flaunting righteous indignation. I love to crap on them. That energizes me.

Me to Brena - especially when they bring false equivalence into the equation!

Michael wrote: "Me to Brena - especially when they bring false equivalence into the equation!"

Actually, false equivalence is an entirely valid tactic for persuading the uninformed. This is well-documented by Breitbart, Fox "News", the RNC, Trump's tweet stream...

interesting and relevant chat. Humour depends not only on the material. That is a great start. The major variables become who the audience is and who the speaker is.

With comedians, birds of a feather generally flock...I doubt too many church groups would have hired George Carlin to keynote at their annual conventions. Nor would he have pitched them.

But re non comedy situations, ie say a speaker at that church convention, you should use common sense whether your goal in using humour is is laughter or persuasion or sending a message.

One answer don't fit all.

I don't think humor goes too far when it offends. In fact, that might be an important aspect of its purpose. People offended by jokes might just be on the verge of learning something about themselves and their thinking... but reacting badly to the learning experience. In which case that makes it a learning opportunity for everyone around them. As in, "well, this angry person may be a nitwit...."

I think humor "goes too far" when it is fundamentally untruthful. For the sake of clarity, let me define a few terms here:

Fact: An event that occurred, or a condition fixed to reality.

Truth: A state of being rational, moral and philosophically correct.

Opinion: Everything else.

So, humor need not be factual to be truthful. No actual priest, rabbi or minister need to walk into a bar in order for a joke to convey some sense of truth through such a fabricated story. Similarly, a "dumb blonde" joke can be truthful in the sense that it conveys a dichotomy of language, concepts and preconceptions that are universal, not just conditional to the color hair of some fictive bubbleheaded woman. When someone says, "Knock, knock" and you say, "Who's there?" and that person responds, "Orange!" you don't say, "But... you're not an orange."

However, let's say a woman is scalded across her groin because she spilled a cup of coffee on her lap, she's burned on 16% of her body, with 6% of the burns third degree. She goes into shock, is taken to the ER, and has to go through a series of painful skin grafts. It turns out that coffee was brewed above the point at which it causes burns on flesh to an "industrial standard" at a fast food restaurant, and that hundreds of people have been burned by the coffee served at that company's franchises. The company refuses to pay her medical bills (offering $800 in a single payment) and also refuses to reduce the temperature at which it brews/serves coffee. She eventually sues, winning several hundred thousand dollars. Yet, the narrative that goes out in the humorsphere is:

JAY LENO: Now she claimed she broke her nose on the sneeze guard at the Sizzler, bending over and looking at the chick peas.

CRAIG FERGUSON: Oooh, my coffee was too hot! It’s coffee!

COSMO KRAMER: Do you think we have a chance?
JACKIE CHILES: Do we have a chance? Get me one coffee drinker on that jury and you’re gonna be a rich man.

Jokes don't have to be factual, but in this case we're talking about humor that either intentionally misrepresented the facts and/or were outright fabrications in order to support an equally false narrative.

How that narrative gets into the humorsphere on massive corporate media outlets I'll let you decide for yourself. (Hint: those outlets are owned by corporations....)

In the same vein, I'd argue that many racial jokes are similarly untruthful and "too far" because they support a narrative based on stereotypes, preconceptions and outright falsehoods. That's not to say one can't joke based on race. However, I have noticed that (just as a rule of thumb) the racial jokes that seem to be truthful are more about culture and/or are self-deprecating, rather than about some supposed link between genetics and behavior. That distinction appears lost on a lot of people who see all jokes about "race" as equally offensive to all people in all situations, or who engage in a little indignant Whataboutism to feed their manufactured rage addiction.

Similarly, many of the memes that come out of so much of the political sphere these days are "too far" in that they are, at best, so over-simplified that they can't convey truth in a meaningful way. Slapping a swastika on a cartoon of a politician's jacket and a black toothbrush mustache on his face may or may not be particularly funny or truthful, but when done arbitrarily and abstractly it doesn't have much chance of being either.

I was a comedian for twelve years. This is a topic that never gets old for me. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an audience member say, "so-and-so isn't funny." People really do think that things are funny or not funny. Comedy is absolutely subjective.

I think it's Peter Sellers that I'm paraphrasing here. He said that if there is a topic that someone thinks should be off limits, that thing has power over that person. That person is voluntarily granting dominance over themselves, not to an actual person, but to an idea.

Also, we are now living in a culture that rewards the most offended. I believe it's called virtue signaling.

When I first started doing stand-up, the comedy club green room was a magical place where all of the comedians were trying to top one another. It didn't matter how offensive things got; what mattered was how clever you could be. Often times it was more fun than the actual show. Towards the end of my time as a comic, the green rooms were filled with young newcomers quietly discussing what they should and shouldn't be allowed to say. Upon discovering self-censoring comics, I knew it wasn't a world I wanted to stay in much longer.

Perform what you want to perform. Write what you want to write. If anyone gets offended, fuck 'em. The second you start toning down the thing you've created because you might be offending someone out there, you are no longer a writer, comedian, painter, etc; you are now nothing more than a jukebox.

Matt wrote: "Perform what you want to perform. Write what you want to write.."

I agree...but only to a degree.

Fear of offending is generally a foolish consideration, however tailoring a performance for an audience is not a compromise; it's common sense. Let's be real, it's not reasonable to perform the exact same material at a Vegas nightclub that you would perform at a family show with children present.

Consider also the art of making the offensive palatable. For example, Sam Kinison's routine on homosexual necrophilia was hilarious. All it took was the proper approach to convince an audience that this subject was indeed funny.

Humor is indeed subjective (AKA You can't please everybody.).
Self-censorship is generally a bad idea.
Fear of offending should not be a consideration.
Be true to your art.

BUT ABOVE ALL...

Rules are made to be broken.

I agree...but only to a degree.

I also agree with what you said...mostly.

I suppose it comes down to how you start off your creative endeavors. If I write something that fifty percent of people who are exposed to it find offensive, while the other fifty percent love it, the people who hate it will go away while the people that love it will wonder what else I've done. If I don't change my material to suit all tastes, I'll eventually find an audience comprised of people who enjoy whatever it is that I do. I get to be "true to my art" without compromise. However, I will suffer a great deal until I've found people who enjoy what I do.

"Let's be real, it's not reasonable to perform the exact same material at a Vegas nightclub that you would perform at a family show with children present."

I agree. I've seen people like that in the stand-up world. Honestly, I don't consider them to be comedians. They are provocateurs pretending to be comedians.

My post wasn't really about having strippers at a kid's birthday party. It was more about people who don't realize the huge disservice they are doing to an art form by censoring themselves. To a lesser extent it was about how today's value systems (virtue signaling) don't make for a great environment for art to thrive.

I knew comics when I lived in LA who liked to think of themselves as edgy. But when they would come to the south to do shows they wouldn't do material making fun of the south for fear of being offensive. Those were always the most forgettable comics. The guys who came through and were ruthless with their southern jokes got massive amounts of applause and couldn't have bought their own drinks if they wanted to.

The folks who did well did so because they gambled on themselves. Playing it safe often ends in mediocrity. Doing pro gay marriage jokes in San Francisco doesn't impress anyone. Do those same jokes in Dothan, Alabama and make them work. Then I'll give those comics credit for their edginess.

Anyhow, for the most part it looks like we're on the same page.

Matt wrote: "...for the most part it looks like we're on the same page..."

Seems so to me, too.

There are at least two schools of thought here. One is that we should say what we want and if anyone objects, fuck 'em.

The other is that there should be limits, even if we can't always agree on what those limits should be.

Both points of view are valid.

I'm new to this site. Facebook has a "like" button. This is me liking your comment. I'm not sure if there's some other way to do it or not.

One thing that may also separate funny from offensive is the question of who is talking. To use an innocuous example, I can make jokes about redheaded tempers, because I'm a redhead (well, I was. Shut up). When some brown-haired guy does the same, he's basically saying he's better than me, and I'll get pissed off. Poke fun at yourself, and be damned careful how you poke it at other people. You might be funny--and we all do it--but any time we start in on how "they" do something we laugh at, we are saying we're superior.

Now, I know I'm superior to most people out there. But it's tactless of me when I point it out. And if I turn everyone else into a joke for being so stupid, I'm a tactless a-hole.

Rebecca - totally agree. It seems that we are allowed to make fun of ourselves although no-one else can. That explains why white people shouldn't use the N word ... unless they are Quentin Tarantino.

I think there are also some characteristics which many people see as fair game. It seems to be open season on hair colour (or lack of hair), even if we are much more cautious about making jokes about skin colour.

Age and occupation also seem to be free targets. No-one complains much if we make jokes about lawyers, journalists or politicians. Or young or old people.

We do live in confusing times.

Anthony Jeselnik has made a fortune from dead baby jokes. He uses a jerk persona on stage and is brilliant. He thought he was going to write the great American novel, and now is in high demand for his comedic writing.

Adopting a persona opens the floodgates on creativity.

Rebecca wrote: "...Now, I know I'm superior to most people out there. But it's tactless of me when I point it out. And if I turn everyone else into a joke for being so stupid, I'm a tactless a-hole."

I have a friend who was, for a time, a neighbor of Marilyn vos Savant (highest recorded IQ according to the Guinness Book of Records). One of my friend's favorite anecdotes is that she personally witnessed the smartest woman on the planet accidentally locking herself out of her apartment.

Superiority is a delusion. We all have superior characteristics; we all have myriad failings. Welcome to the human race.

People have likely been trying to dissect humor ever since the first primeval laugh. Amazingly, everybody still seems surprised that it is so multi-faceted.

Rebecca wrote: "One thing that may also separate funny from offensive is the question of who is talking. To use an innocuous example, I can make jokes about redheaded tempers, because I'm a redhead (well, I was. S..."

suffer no fools...

I also had red hair until I got older, and all pigment did a runner.

I love self-deprecating people. I think they are superior.

So whenever Bill Mahr rails against this I always wonder why no one brings up the obvious. I, personally, think most comics are hilarious. I have a great sense of humor, and I can hear their material on an intellectual level and find it funny, even if at another level I can acknowledge that it perpetuates sexist sterotypes or minimizes experiences.
But inevitably, the person who tells the blond jokes is the same A-hole who pats you on the butt, or does other inappropriate things at work.
It is akin to what Dave Chappelle realized - in his hilarious skits where he poked fun at himself/his culture he was basically giving racists material to be racist with the next day. And then they could be racist but like "Oh, Im just repeating what Dave Chapelle said"
So these college kids are just trying it out in the tradition of college kids everywhere - what happens if you don't let people be "funny" about that stuff in the first place?
Humor has been around forever, it's not going anywhere. Do your thing and those who like it will watch.

Kate wrote: "...But inevitably, the person who tells the blond jokes is the same A-hole who pats you on the butt, or does other inappropriate things at work.i..."

Maybe sometimes, but not necessarily all the time. As a blond woman who has been groped by strangers, assaulted by male bosses, and had to bring in notes and even witnesses to prove I'd written a paper because a (female) professor said I didn't "look smart enough" to have written it -- I also tell dumb blond jokes.

I do because I know the difference between reality and jokes -- and I do so because sometimes I do stupid things like everyone else on the planet. I just have a handy excuse as to why.

I have no idea what the strangers who touched me were like, but I do know that neither my "good Christian" boss (who used to pin me at my desk and rub his genitals against the back of my neck) nor my professor ever made dumb blond jokes -- at least not in public. They claimed to find that kind of humor inappropriate.

This topic came up in conversation last night. One consensus held that, when the "humor" is more of a projection of the presenter's own sour grapes, it wasn't funny. I figure, a laugh is a laugh, and it's up to society to catch up with the joke. I should note that mine was the minority opinion.

Joel wrote: "This topic came up in conversation last night. One consensus held that, when the "humor" is more of a projection of the presenter's own sour grapes, it wasn't funny. I figure, a laugh is a laugh, a..."

Those people would definitely hate my writing.
Gallows humor is trending, and even I am shocked by what I am hearing. It takes a lot to shock me.

One of my favorite jokes:
What is worse than a worm in your apple.
The Holocaust.

Interesting thread. I find that everything humorous I write offends someone, often other writers. Most people understand when an author is trying to be funny. They may laugh or not, but they will certainly not go berserk accusing the author of racism or whatever. The people less smart (<--euphemism used not to offend) are the ones that will rip on you. And there is no shortage of less smart people in this world. IMHO

I agree 100% Gregg. I posted a blog on this very subject. They do not realize the value of Stephen Leacock's words, "The world's humour, in its best and greatest sense, is perhaps the highest product of our civilization."

https://marcelshumour.com/no-jokes-ar...

Ha ha, Marcel. Liked your blogpost:

Furthermore the term “Knock” evokes an image of violence.

It's like sarcasm too. It takes a certain level of intelligence to "get" sarcasm.

Of course, not everything is funny to everybody, but the people that are willing to kill people for offending some perceived slight. That's crazy.

Just don't read the book or listen to the performance. I don't like a lot of profanity, so I don't listen to Chris Rock. End of problem.

You and I and many other students of humour are on the same pg.

The fanatics would just love to shut or shout us down.

Nick wrote: "...A world without humour is a world without life."

The 'Humour Police' have been with us always, especially among those in power. Unfortunately, there's not much research money devoted to this particular form of brain damage.

However, note that not all those in power are afflicted. According to a Snopes'
Fact Check , the quote below is genuine:



Although to be fair, we can't directly compare this to the reaction of today's leadership to criticism, (i.e. - a Trump Tweet Storm) since the circumstances have so obviously changed... The Smothers Brothers are no longer on the air.

Yeah, there are some cool pols. Reagan, like his policies or not, had a good sense of humor and told some wonderful self-deprecating jokes.