…US congresswoman Maria Elvira Salazar said she was “disgusted” by the “racist comment”. She said it did not "reflect the GOP values""…
You sure about that Maria?
…US congresswoman Maria Elvira Salazar said she was “disgusted” by the “racist comment”. She said it did not "reflect the GOP values""…
You sure about that Maria?
Why is it that when a more progressive comedian tells a joke that everyone says it’s funny and doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings, but when a conservative comedian tells a joke that it’s racist or sexist or transphobic or deeply unsettling?
Like, I get why it’s all those things, but like why is that their version of humor? Like, if someone’s a comedian and they vote for republicans (yes, there’s already a problem) and then they ask “when is a door not a door?” Are they able to say “when it’s ajar”? Will their party abandon them if they do? Or are they just incapable of providing any punchline other than “x group of people are a subhuman species and deserve to die”? Also, what compels their fans to laugh at that?
You might be interested in this Some More News segment where they try to analyze whether modern conservative comedians are even telling jokes these days. They compare it to what conservative comedy used to be ~20 years ago with the likes of Jeff Foxworthy and talk about how those guys actually were making jokes with actual comedic structure (subjective level of funniness aside).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSXKzPOcYDU
I actually watched that one and really enjoyed it, but I still don’t get the mentality. Like, I love slapstick humor and a good pratfall gets a big laugh out of me, but I’ve never laughed at someone getting slapped or falling and hurting themselves.
This is actual hurtful “comedy.” How do people enjoy that or think it’s okay?
Nearly exclusively from my observation modern conservative comedians are “punching down”. Meaning conservative are usually in a position of power, authority, or inclusion and the conservative joke is belittling those with little to no power, authority, or inclusion. Contrast this with most progressive comedians that are “punching up” where they are calling out the powerful, putting down the authority, casting the included myopic.
Perhaps a better way to answer your question is to re-frame it:
“Why is it celebrated when the bullied stand up and punch their bully, but when a bully punches someone they are bullying it is deeply unsettling?”
The answer is obviously that bullying is wrong.
See, I get that part. I’m still confused why some people cheer for the bully.
My guess is the people cheering are, themselves, other bullies.
What makes comedy and art in general good is when it torpedoes simple reductive narratives and leaves behind chaotic, nuanced and existential truths.
I heard someone describe the existentialist humor of their irish friends as being a joke framework where the original context and framing of the joke is utterly obliterated or trivialized by the end of the joke, and I think that is a good lens to diagnose why conservatives are largely incapable of making good comedy.
Conservativism is the antithesis of existentialism, it attempts through any means necessary to cement specific narratives in the minds of the audience and prevent the framing of those narratives from being examined or questioned.
Conservative art is just an even lamer version of advertisement, it is simply a narrative being presented for the audience to believe. There is no substance or free spirit to conservative humor that allows the exploration or creation of anything new. All that conservative art does in the realm of symbols and meaning is point at the correct ones and say “we will hurt you if you tell any other story than this”.
The ONLY two things conservative humor is capable of doing by design are punching down at stereotypes for laughs and pretending like saying mean weird thoughts that randomly pop into your head from kneejerk reactions without considering whether it might hurt others or not is edgey rather than a selfish pushback to being told your views are hateful trash.
Modern conservatism is all about setting up in-groups and out-groups, and their humor plays directly into that. Their humor reinforces the stereotypes they want to believe, then when they get called out in it they play the “It’s just a joke, brah!” card. But it’s not the humor that should trouble us, it’s the underlying assumptions that you need to have to see it as funny.
Oh shit, that feels like such a simplified and meaningful response. So it’s that in-group/out-group mentality? They aren’t laughing because a marginalized group is being threatened, they’re laughing when the marginalized group is labeled at subhuman and then described as “garbage,” “lazy,” or “unintelligent.”
It’s like how blonde jokes used to be funny if you accepted that “the blonde” was this unbelievably foolish character. But instead of blonde, you substitute x minority or “non-heteronormative” and instead of something creative such as wishing the friends who just escaped the island were back on the island, you just give them monstrous attributes such as being rapists and criminals?
I feel like I’m getting really really close to understanding this, I don’t see how you get from A to B in this kind of “humor” because B isn’t funny and doesn’t seem like anyone someone would want to go…
Comedy has become an act of airing social grievances (maybe always has been but definitely amplified these days) and thus peoples inherently political social grievances are going to sort them into their respective camps.
If the problems you’re facing and exposing are “the big man is keeping me down” you’re gonna find solidarity in that message and if your problems are “those people are gross and I don’t like them” only other people who have similar obsession with ordering society into groups of chosen people vs undesirables will respond to your message.