Well the truth is a bit in the reverse engineering of this. There is humor- lots of great, legendary humor- that doesn’t make anyone the punchline. No one’s identity is laughed at. Then there are jokes- lots of legendary jokes- that don’t attack anyone. They may make fun of a concept- of the logic behind something or an analysis of it- but they don’t actually attack or implicate anyone. Then there are lots of great and poignant jokes that DO attack certain people- corrupt politicians, abusers, bullies, people who try to destroy and hurt for the sake of it or to take from others. “Bad people.”
So we know you don’t have to offend to be funny- but sometimes offense is a consequence of being funny or humor is a way to say something on a sensitive topic but dull the edge. We know you don’t have to insult people for existing to be funny. We know that often generalizations and such in comedy that use a group as a foil do so to point to social injustices or failings- a joke about police brutality against a certain group- not to insult that group or speak positively of brutality, but to highlight the problem without preaching a sermon or moralizing dryly.
In simple terms- when you tell a topical joke there is generally a message there. A kernel of thought. When Road Runner crushes the Coyote under his own anvil and generations laugh- why? Did the people telling those jokes or the people laughing think animal cruelty was funny? No. It’s a cartoon. It’s fake. You know it is “safe” to laugh. No one is hurt by it in theory. If a bunch of kids start killing each other with rockets and hammers and anvils do you think those cartoons would still be made? No. Guns and weapons have been increasingly absent from children's programming as those things have increasingly become common threats in ordinary life. Am I saying cartoons with guns cause gun violence? No. That’s a bit daft.
I’m saying that it becomes much harder to laugh or make light hearted fun with the things that hundreds of people or thousands or millions are grieving the loss of loved ones to or living with trauma from or living in fear of. So yeah- Jewish people can be a little sensitive to certain insults or stereotypes or “teasing” because… duh. Massive genocide and thousands of years of persecution that were preceded by or fueled by those sorts of things. Certain other groups are pretty sensitive to some things that maybe are similarly often or historically tied to… murdering them or taking their rights or such..?
Because if your “joke” is a semi serious and thought out argument as to why someone doesn’t deserve to exist or shouldn’t have equal rights or be considered for equal rights because their existence or consideration causes some problems in your worldview- that’s not really a joke is it? You might use humor- but you are making a point or advocating an idea- an idea that someone else shouldn’t have rights or exist or be considered human.
So yeah- it can be complicated and there isn’t a rule book. There isn’t an actual “line” that is codified and says one joke about a group is ok by one person in one set of circumstances and not another. There is a dialog there. There isn’t a single person or a department that decides it.
The whole “quit being sensitive” or “cancel culture” narrative is lazy, simple, dismissive. It attempts to side step that entire dialog and instead of having to have conversations and having to learn and adapt and se different view points or sometimes admit we didn’t mean to hurt anyone but we did- it puts all the weight on everyone else. “I’m not responsible for what I say, YOU are responsible for how you take what I say…” well… that’s not how that works is it? “I’m not responsible because my food killed you- you’re responsible for not having a strong enough immune system to fight the food poisoning..”
“Yes I hit them, but if they were stronger it wouldn’t hurt as much.” Because that’s how that works isn’t it? Legally if you don’t leave a mark it doesn’t count because pain is in your mind- lord of guys have been punched by Mike Tyson and stood- so if Tyson hits you, they were fine, so you’d be fine too no harm no foul right?
That’s not how that works is it? Because we all have our thresholds. Now I’m not saying we need to make hurting peoples feelings illegal- but if you go around intentionally and willfully hurting people… what is that usually called? The thing about freedom, including freedom of speech, is that how we use it reflects on us.
Comments
So yeah- it can be complicated and there isn’t a rule book. There isn’t an actual “line” that is codified and says one joke about a group is ok by one person in one set of circumstances and not another. There is a dialog there. There isn’t a single person or a department that decides it.
“Yes I hit them, but if they were stronger it wouldn’t hurt as much.” Because that’s how that works isn’t it? Legally if you don’t leave a mark it doesn’t count because pain is in your mind- lord of guys have been punched by Mike Tyson and stood- so if Tyson hits you, they were fine, so you’d be fine too no harm no foul right?