When does a joke go too far?

Great Debates
41

The act of lying to one’s self exists.
The phenomenon of using words to hurt other people, then disingenuously passing it off as a joke exists- even such instances where the speaker has even convinced himself the he wasn’t being hurtful.

I was only addressing the fact that this kind of speech exists. I do not claim 100% accuracy in picking out one instance from another (addressed further below).

Looking back at the question I had intended to answer:

I suppose I could concede to amend my answer a bit as I now see that you put “a joke” in quotation marks. Yes. I do believe “a joke” could be hate speech. I’ll stand by my earlier statement that a joke wouldn’t be hate speech.

O.K. To further address the above.
I said someone could disingenuously claim to have been making a joke when they were in fact using words to intentionally hurt. I then said I don’t claim 100% accuracy in picking out one instance from another. So, who gets to judge?

The reason why I’m not concerned about my own lack of 100% accuracy in picking out one instance from another is because I don’t think it’s important. I think it’s actually better to grant benefit of doubt to the absolute worst case scenarios.

Some jokes are just bad jokes.
A good joke will stand on its own, will hit on various levels, will strike a chord with many people. Still, no matter how well received any entertainment or work of art is, it is not beyond valid criticism. So critique the joke the same way you’d critique a novel.

Someone makes a joke about lazy black people on food stamps.
Depending on the speaker, the joke, and the circumstances I may very well have an idea that the guy is a disingenuous asshole but it doesn’t matter. I’m happy to give him the benefit of the doubt because it is a more productive way to address his words.

So, he makes a joke about lazy black people on food stamps.
Let’s accept his word that he was making a joke and not directing hate at a particular group.
Let’s accept that he really is aiming at hard-edged social commentary about a) Government assistance providing disincentive to personal resourcefulness and upward mobility, and b) The racial divide and racial tensions in our society are exacerbated not by oppression from above but rather from lower class blacks themselves who are the cause of their own problems.

Now, in our editorial retort, let’s critique the joke. Was the premise valid? We can go into the nuance of Government assistance, the importance of a social safety net, we can cite the facts and statistics about how many people getting assistance are actually working and making an effort to better themselves, the facts and statistics about how many white people get government assistance and question why a black face is always put on this kind of debate. We can look at the progress history has shown as we strive toward racial equality, cite the contributions and achievements of black leaders, cite instances where racism is indeed still systematic, all to challenge the assertion that a troubled community is the cause of it’s own problems.

We can easily pick apart the joke as a bad joke. In doing so, we encourage dialogue and we encourage a big picture look at the problems we face as a society.

And, you know what? If the comic and/or the comic’s fans want to respond to our critique they actually have to respond to the points made in the ciritque. And some, including the comic himself, may actually change their minds and agree with us! The comic in particular, if he truly views himself as an entertianer/artist employing a particular craft, probably wants to be regarded as being good at his craft. So, if the joke is critiqued as being a bad joke the comic may well be more interested in becoming involved in the conversation.

Conversely
In our editorial, we call him racist. We call the joke offensive.
Know what we’re going to be called? Thin skinned. Obtuse. Politically correct.
Know what kind of dialogue we’re going to start? None.

So, I’m just saying that hate disguised as joking is something that exists distinct and separate from genuine jokes. I’m not claiming to be a mind reader who will always be able to pick one from the other. That’s o.k. by me because I don’t think it’s important to pick one from the other.

To paraphrase:
It is better that ten hateful comments be allowed to pass as jokes than that one legitimate joke be silenced.

42

Wouldn’t they be more comfortable on chairs or couches?

43

Too far.

Regards,
Shodan

44

I would say that if you get a lot of other edgy comedians coming out and saying someone went too far with a “joke” then you probably weren’t telling a joke and were just being mean and offensive. Kind of like having a trial by a jury of your peers. Other comedians probably have a fairly good idea of whether or not a joke was just flat out offensive so if several of them come out against you, you’ve crossed a line.

45

There is a whole genre of humor whose only purpose is to go too far. Should the Aristocrats joke never be told?

Regards,
Shodan

46

I agree with you. I think as long as someone realizes it was a joke, even an offensive one, they shouldn’t expect or demand an apology.

But when a comedian goes on a rampage about niggers and how 60 years ago we’d have them hanging by a tree with a fork up their ass, and nobody in the world thinks that is a joke, then you’ve crossed a line.

So if your position is, “That was a very hateful joke and I think you should give an apology,” then that’s pretty dumb. But if it is, “That was a really hateful and terrible thing you said and I think you should give an apology,” then that’s a bit better.

But again, who can separate joke from statement best? Probably other edgy comedians.