does this also apply to satirical comedy against prominent figures in society, ie politicians, social media personalities, film and tv stars, etc? because that’d kill a lot of what has been previously considered comedy. though for in-person bashing, i agree. that’s pretty shitty.
I think there is nuance to it. Anyone who has ever watched a “bad roast” may not be able to articulate it, but can see a difference vs. a “good roast” where even the subject is having a good time being insulted- a discomfort or “cringe” perhaps. Propaganda seeks to belittle politicians and public personalities, good satirical humor uses exaggeration as a lens to distill things to a simpler view or remove them from politicized context or to show the folly of reason. It can be a form of critique- but we can critique without belittling. We can even outright mock- mock an idea or concept, without locking a person. There’s room for interpretation and not everyone will agree what is “good taste” or not, though some things a majority of observers will immediately identify as “bad taste” if they are consuming critically. Humor is a complex subject often linked to culture. It is a science and an art, patterns and formulas apply but it is possible to create humor by going against the “formulas”
and “data” concerning humor. In general though, there is a “low hanging fruit” in mean spirited humor, humor that doesn’t say anything except “let’s laugh at this person because they are different or in a social position that allows us to mock them” it’s that intangible difference between “laughing with” and “laughing at.” A public figure has to some capacity agreed to a life in public view and subject to public opinions. A good but not universal test is, if we take the joke away, would it be mean? What are we saying with our humor? If I have valid criticism against a politicians record, putting a tone of humor to that criticism doesn’t change what I am saying. A joke about how “fat” a politician is or a movie stars speech impediment- if we strip the joke, we are just saying: “hey, this person has a speech impediment!” I mean- we can all tell. That’s not really saying anything worth saying.
2Reply
deleted
· 2 years ago
The point is in the word "belittle", meaning that roasting comedy should be directed uphill, not downhill.
Is she referencing something specific? Why does she think that what people think is funny is going to change?
deleted
· 2 years ago
Are YOU referencing something specific what - in your opinion - people think is funny and you believe she wants to change?
.
Do you really think people generally laugh at the same things today as they did 20, 30, 40 years ago, no exceptions?
I have no idea what you're trying to say with you first sentence, but I meant why does she think what people think is funny is going to change in that specific way, not in general. I'm aware that senses of humor change.
.
Do you really think people generally laugh at the same things today as they did 20, 30, 40 years ago, no exceptions?