This thread is regarding relative offensiveness. Compare:
Howard Stern: “Everybody sucks.” Makes fun of everyone, no holes barred - men, women, handicapped, gay, stutterers, stupid and smart alike. Also makes fun of himself often. An equal opportunity offender.
Martin Lawrence: “FUBU.” For the most part makes fun of, and for, his own, i.e., the black community. Pokes holes in the relative truth and untruth of stereotypes, using the fact that he is black (and has a black man’s experience) as the springboard for his comedy. (Not sure how often he makes fun of himself, or what he has to say about other communities, but then I’m not a huge fan of his work - somebody else can clarify if they feel the need.)
Now obviously I’ve only chosen Stern and Lawrence as relative examples - certainly the full body of their work does not reflect the above observations 100%. Let’s not debate my examples, but rather use them in a discussion about offensiveness, to wit:
[ul][li]How offensive are they and/or their subject matter? Why?[/li][li]Which is more offensive to you? Less? Equally? At all? Why?[/li][li]Which is “better” - making fun of only your own, or making fun of everyone, inclusive, without discriminating?[/li][li]Is Lawrence being hypocritical by not making fun of more kinds of people?[/li][li]Is Stern being more offensive than acceptable by not limiting his routine to communities with which he identifies/is identified?[/li][li]What is the line between poking fun at human foibles and mocking someone or an entire subset of people?[/li][li]Do you find such humor from “your own kind” (whatever “kind” that may be) offensive or not offensive?[/ul][/li]No particular reason for this, just kind of comparing and contrasting.
I personally find Howard more offensive than Lawrence. I like Howard, and I’ve read his book, but I can only take him in small doses.
I think this is because Howard’s goal is to be offensive simply for its own sake, oftentimes with little or no humor value.
Lawrence on the other hand seems to be primarily interested in humor, and freqently finds the humor in offensive material. It doesn’t seem that being offensive is the end though.
It kind of makes me mad, because Stern is occasionally incredibly funny, but it gets tiresome when he goes on about wanting to spank some girl’s ass for half an hour or more.
I never get offended at Lawrence because the goal of humor allows him a lot of leeway. With Stern it seems more of an excuse.
I agree with Scylla in that Howard Stern offends for the sake of offending. I don’t find Martin Lawrence particulary funny. DL Hughley is a better example of a comedian who makes fun of his own in MHO.
Now to your questions: How offensive are they and/or their subject matter? Why?
I don’t listen to Stern, it too much like watching an 8th grade shower room.
Which is more offensive to you? Less? Equally? At all? Why?
I don’t find either offensive personally.
Which is “better” - making fun of only your own, or making fun of everyone, inclusive, without discriminating?
Me, I like comedians who make fun of their own, rather than comedians who make fun of the other guy. I just think you’ll present a more accurate and humorous picture if you confine your subject to what you know best.
Is Lawrence being hypocritical by not making fun of more kinds of people?
I don’t think so.
Is Stern being more offensive than acceptable by not limiting his routine to communities with which he identifies/is identified?
I don’t think so.
What is the line between poking fun at human foibles and mocking someone or an entire subset of people?
Hardest question by far. I’ll get back to you.
Do you find such humor from “your own kind” (whatever “kind” that may be) offensive or not offensive?
I must be very difficult to offend. I think I’m only offended by people who believe they’re more important than other people, especially when they think they’re more important in a higher being’s eyes. This would cover sexism, racism, and some other isms.
Again, I was just choosing them as examples - certainly not perfect ones, obviously. I was going for the concepts behind the comedies of “mocking all” and “mocking your own.”
Don’t know enough about these guys to comment about them specifically. But I think making fun of “your own” is a double edged sword, in that while members of the same group might be more willing to accept it from “their own”, the fact that the offender is from that subgroup also tends to lend more credence to the ridicule. (As an example, Chris Rock - another guy I’ve never actually heard - is often invoked when discussing racial stereotypes). What is true is that making fun of your own to your own is acceptable. But this does not apply to criticism of your own to a mixed audience.
The fact that the person openly skewers themselves as well does mitigate it somewhat. This, because it places the ridicule in the context of an all-purpose anything goes atmosphere, as opposed to being a specific criticism dedicated to the group currently being targeted. But it does not excuse everything. Many comedians chose the “everyone insult everyone” code of conduct because it fits in with their way of life and their careers. Also because they are good at it. But it does not excuse everything. (A somewhat distant analogy: can a smoker brush off objections to secondhand smoke on the grounds that he is subjecting himself to even worse?)
