is comedy inherently conservative?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (438 of them)

Is there any identity w/o exclusion and if not, is it not at some level cruel or the beigining of cruelty?

Love Max Ophüls of us all (Michael White), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:21 (eleven years ago) link

Mitch Hedberg is not cruel.

He's sick of the Swiss. He don't like em. (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:26 (eleven years ago) link

But tbf that's largely because he's dead.

Bob Bop Perano (Deric W. Haircare), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:27 (eleven years ago) link

there is this tiny horse and some people think it is the best thing ever and one person doesn't understand why everyone else loves this tiny horse.

i don't think this is a barb puncturing a character, but then what do i know.

s.clover, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:28 (eleven years ago) link

Is russell simmons def comedy jam inherently conservative

sleepingbag, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:50 (eleven years ago) link

yeah it's from wikipedia, but seems to make some sense...

Benign Violation Theory

The benign violation theory (BVT) is developed by researchers A. Peter McGraw and Caleb Warren.[35] The BVT integrates seemingly disparate theories of humor to predict that humor occurs when three conditions are satisfied: 1) something threatens one’s sense of how the world “ought to be,” 2) the threatening situation seems benign, and 3) a person sees both interpretations at the same time.

From an evolutionary perspective, humorous violations likely originated as apparent physical threats, like those present in play fighting and tickling. As humans evolved, the situations that elicit humor likely expanded from physical threats to other violations, including violations of personal dignity (e.g., slapstick, teasing), linguistic norms (e.g., puns, malapropisms), social norms (e.g., strange behaviors, risqué jokes), and even moral norms (e.g., disrespectful behaviors). The BVT suggests that anything that threatens one’s sense of how the world “ought to be” will be humorous, so long as the threatening situation also seems benign.

There is also more than one way a violation can seem benign. McGraw and Warren tested three contexts in the domain of moral violations. A violation can seem benign if one norm suggests something is wrong but another salient norm suggests it is acceptable. A violation can also seem benign when one is psychologically distant from the violation or is only weakly committed to the violated norm.

For example, McGraw and Warren find that most consumers were disgusted when they read about a church raffling off a Hummer SUV to recruit new members. However, many consumers were simultaneously amused. Consistent with the BVT, people who attended church were less likely to be amused than people who did not. Churchgoers are more committed to the belief that churches are sacred and, consequently, were less likely to consider the church’s behavior benign.

thomasintrouble, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:52 (eleven years ago) link

also I want to quip after reading the conservapedia thread that conservatism is inherently comedic ...

thomasintrouble, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:54 (eleven years ago) link

Steven Wright is not cruel.

Vini Reilly Invasion (Elvis Telecom), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:56 (eleven years ago) link

Conservatism is ideal fuel for a type of comedy I really appreciate (i.e. laughing at the fucked up things in the world in order to stave off abject despair).

Bob Bop Perano (Deric W. Haircare), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:00 (eleven years ago) link

want to clarify something here. i still think humor is rarely compassionate (by "humor" i mean jokes, not the larger narratives in which they might occur). this dearth of compassion needn't be cruel though. while wordplay and absurd silliness can be funny without being cruel, they're not typically compassionate.

i'm not saying that truly compassionate jokes categorically can't exist, just that they're rather rare. to the extent that they seem to exist, it usually isn't really the compassion itself that's funny, but rather some behavior or turn of phrase that's used in the communication.

i suppose that there is a strain of compassionate humor that results from the combination of cuteness and oddity. it's rarely laugh out loud funny, imo, in that it depends too much on real sympathy to permit laughter. the response is more an appreciative "awwww".

it's hard for me to think of any popular comedy that's terribly compassionate in its humor.

You could probably make a case for the Rosanne show and Strangers With Candy.

Vini Reilly Invasion (Elvis Telecom), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:07 (eleven years ago) link

Adventure Time!

thomasintrouble, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:09 (eleven years ago) link

i think there is something at the psychological root of a lot of comedy that might lend itself to reinforcing the status quo

Dilbert to thread.

Vini Reilly Invasion (Elvis Telecom), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:14 (eleven years ago) link

This thread is doing a lot to firm up my already semi-solid belief that I need to work on humorous projects aimed at kids. A lot of what I think about wrt comedy relates to its often needless cruelty or the extent that it establishes unnecessary oppositions. And I don't think there's a lot of room for transformative, humanistic comedy for jaded adults.

Bob Bop Perano (Deric W. Haircare), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:15 (eleven years ago) link

think there is some confusion here between compassion and being nice

good men like my father, or president truman (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:15 (eleven years ago) link

think there is some confusion here between compassion and being nice

Mordy, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:18 (eleven years ago) link

I'm interested to hear more about this confusion you speak of.

Bob Bop Perano (Deric W. Haircare), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:19 (eleven years ago) link

well, the presence of compassion in the overall tone isn't at all what i'm talking about. i'm talking more about the direct expression of compassion as a joke. directly expressions of cruelty can be jokes, with little else added. a pratfall, a pie in the face, an embarrassing blunder, an unfortunately nude person, etc. this isn't really true of direct expressions of compassion, which are hard to distinguish from "being nice": a hug, a pat on the head, medical aid, etc.

is it the act of cruelty that's funny or the contect in which it happens?

He's sick of the Swiss. He don't like em. (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:29 (eleven years ago) link

well i think it's possible to feel compassion for someone -- to recognize their humanity and project yourself into them and feel their fears -- and then make harsh jokes about them. the same way you can make harsh jokes about yourself. in fact it's necessary if the jokes are gonna be more than like "lol you talk funny". i haven't watched parks and rec specifically but:

again, the show has compassion towards its characters, overall but the comedy - the jokes themselves - aren't compassionate. they're barbs puncturing the characters image of themselves, jabs at one another.

how could you make jokes about the characters' image of themselves if you didn't understand those images and their frailty at a level only attainable via compassion? and how could you separate the jokes themselves from the compassion that enables those jokes to exist? making fun of people in this way is not the same as cruelty, which requires the reduction of another creature to an object to be toyed with, with no interest in or sympathy for how that person feels. people often describe comedies that rely on bad shit continually happening to someone, or on someone's foibles being revealed and exploited, as "cruel", but the feeling of laughing at these is not the same as the feeling of laughing at, like, the way a dog with a broken leg walks. i think this is why nabokov was always annoyed at people calling his stuff cruel.

good men like my father, or president truman (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:30 (eleven years ago) link

a pie in the face is i guess cruelty but i mean most of why people laugh at pies in the face (if they indeed do) is surprise.

good men like my father, or president truman (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:30 (eleven years ago) link

yeah, i think you're using a much more extreme definition of comic "cruelty" than i am. a pie in the face is funny because it's unexpected, sure, but it wouldn't be anywhere near so comical if it was an unexpected hug, or an unxepected gift of flowers. it's the violence that makes the surprise funny. we're shocked, but we immediately realize that there's no real threat or harm, so we laugh to relieve tension.

and i agree that a lot of character based comedy depends on our compassion towards the characters involved, but on a certain level, that framing compassion is merely the device that allows us to accept and understand the small cruelties that provide the laughs. i don't think that cruelty requires complete othering and objectification. even if we're only fondly cruel to our loved ones, there's still a little barb in there.

I'm interested to hear more about this confusion you speak of.

tbh i thought this thread was much more interesting before half the participants sounded like this guy:

http://theinfosphere.org/images/d/dc/Billionare_bot.jpg

Mordy, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:39 (eleven years ago) link

that is: making fun of people is is always cruel, but it's not always so cruel as to be hurtful or otherwise objectionable. calibrating the degree of cruelty one can get away with while still earning audience sympathy is the key to a lot of comedy.

guess i shd read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor

surprise seems like a key element, or the unexpected or unplanned.

a joke in a pure form is about setting an expectation or creating a structure (setup) and then not meeting that expectation or wrecking it in some way (the punchline)

goole, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:42 (eleven years ago) link

tbh i thought this thread was much more interesting before half the participants sounded like this guy:

^ the comedy of cruelty

don't puss out, which half?

goole, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:44 (eleven years ago) link

xps well sure, i can be less categorical about "cruelty", and you're right about the pies. but main point is still that without compassion you just can't be that funny about people because you can't get inside them, and the compassion you use to get inside them is not a totally separate thing from the jokes or just there to leaven the cruelty. i mean it can't "just" be a device that allows us to understand the jokes because if we didn't understand the jokes there wouldn't be any jokes.

good men like my father, or president truman (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:47 (eleven years ago) link

ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION IS what does it mean when an intelligent psychopath to whom people's motives and fears are unusually transparent but who is incapable of actually empathizing with them makes jokes about them? how deep can the jokes go? are they doomed to a kind of glibness? frustratingly none of the psychopaths i undoubtedly know will own up to me about it so i can't investigate this personally.

good men like my father, or president truman (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:50 (eleven years ago) link

i'm talking more about the direct expression of compassion as a joke. directly expressions of cruelty can be jokes, with little else added. a pratfall, a pie in the face, an embarrassing blunder, an unfortunately nude person, etc. this isn't really true of direct expressions of compassion, which are hard to distinguish from "being nice": a hug, a pat on the head, medical aid, etc.

(x-post)
Is that even possible without some sort of implied guilt, condescension, or distancing though? I'm thinking of Laura and Sarah's relationship on the Sarah Silverman Program - there's compassion (albeit one-sided), but it originates out of this horrible co-dependency.

Vini Reilly Invasion (Elvis Telecom), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:51 (eleven years ago) link

I should clarify that I have differing and occasionally clashing concerns wrt this stuff. On the one hand, I enjoy a broad range of comedy, including some stuff that's pretty wantonly cruel. But that's within, like, the privacy of my own home, where I know what my values are and am secure that transgressive-to-offensive comedy isn't going to turn me into a slavering psychopath. On the other hand, I think a lot about the effect that comedy has on other people (as hashed out to an extent in that "Tyranny of humor" thread) and I have some concern about the extent to which humor coarsens or desensitizes people or encourages cruelty but not quite "won't somebody please think of the children?!"-level concern. Where that concern becomes most acute is when I think about any work that have done or will do in the public sphere and the extent to which I don't personally wish to contribute to a tendency towards humor-induced coarsening. When I think about issues like this, and consider questions like "is comedy inherently conservative?", it leads me to realize that the issue is less that comedy is inherently any one thing than it is that comedy is a huge ocean liner traveling full steam ahead in a particular direction and that it's going to be difficult to get most people on board with going in any other direction. Which, personally, is not a fight that I'm sure I'd wanna put much energy into with people whose senses of humor are probably already primed for a certain approach to comedy.

Bob Bop Perano (Deric W. Haircare), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:58 (eleven years ago) link

Is that even possible without some sort of implied guilt, condescension, or distancing though? I'm thinking of Laura and Sarah's relationship on the Sarah Silverman Program - there's compassion (albeit one-sided), but it originates out of this horrible co-dependency.

well exactly. comedy depends on shared point-of-view for one thing. we have to be "with" the comic voice, on its side. if we hate the comic voice, we won't think they stuff it says is funny. the jokes will just make us hate the implied joke-teller all the more.

this is even true of characters who we're supposed to hate, because the actual comic voice in play isn't precisely theirs. the comic voice is the sensibility that has constructed the hateable character as someone for us to laugh at. andrew dice clay is a great example of this. he was initially funny, in an odd way, because he seemed like a perfect cartoon of loathsomeness and stupidity. that novelty wore off quickly, however, and much of the humor drained away when it started to seem that there wasn't any difference between the comic sensibilities of "the diceman" and his creator, andrew clay silverstein. at that point, audience sympathy evaporated.

compassion is important in comedy because of the need to maintain audience sympathy even while the comic voice is engaged in potentially cruel mockery.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/i-can-has-cheezburger.jpg

arguably the most widespread form of humor on the internet.

i guess it's cruel because the cat can't really have the cheezburger? haha, stupid cat. cheezburgers are for people.

s.clover, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 20:53 (eleven years ago) link

or maybe it's compassionate because we really wish the cat could have the cheezburger.

comedy man, it makes you think.

s.clover, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 20:54 (eleven years ago) link

it's ok tho, because that cat probably became an asshole over people making fun of him for looking retarded, so fuck him anyway

He's sick of the Swiss. He don't like em. (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 20:59 (eleven years ago) link

lolcats work in two ways:

1) they're cute. people like cute things.
2) they're dumb. it's funny to laugh at the dumb things people (uh, cats) say.

seems like one of the best end-runs around the cruelty of humor that anyone's come up with. shift the laughable stupidity onto animals that we don't expect to be smart, whose dumbness we find endearing. that way we can just enjoy the risible foolishness without putting anybody down.

parks and rec works on basically the same principal, but instead of cats it's hoosiers

He's sick of the Swiss. He don't like em. (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 21:08 (eleven years ago) link

THAT'S HOW CATS TALK

― nabisco, Monday, December 10, 2007 5:08 PM (4 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

goole, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 21:15 (eleven years ago) link

ilx: explaining lolcats since 1999.

s.clover, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 21:17 (eleven years ago) link

cats who lol. cats who make YOU lol. lolcats.

sleepingbag, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 21:30 (eleven years ago) link

Is Bill Hicks the transitional figure between L Bruce's transgressive/progressive vanguard and the stereotype-ridden, anti-PC shock humor employed by Howard Stern, Seth Macfarlane, and Ric Delgado?

Mark Ruffalo! is gonna tell us! about empathy! (loves laboured breathing), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 21:32 (eleven years ago) link

a joke in a pure form is about setting an expectation or creating a structure (setup) and then not meeting that expectation or wrecking it in some way (the punchline)

yeah if comedy works by subverting our expectations, and those expectations come from assumptions we have about the target of the joke, then those assumptions would tend to be stereotypes in most cases, right? and any joke that targets a broad category of person (or targets a specific person who can be shoehorned into a category) would almost by necessity be playing with stereotypes. so is it possible to skewer a stereotype without in some way also reinforcing it?

wk, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 23:53 (eleven years ago) link

the chicken and guys walking into bars lobbies have so much work to do

goole, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 02:57 (eleven years ago) link

you know what's conservative, that recent run of Mark Twain Prize winners. God Almighty.

World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 02:59 (eleven years ago) link

Is Bill Hicks the transitional figure between L Bruce's transgressive/progressive vanguard and the stereotype-ridden, anti-PC shock humor employed by Howard Stern, Seth Macfarlane, and Ric Delgado?

Married With Children imo

cosi fan whitford (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 03:14 (eleven years ago) link

the cheezburger represents God, Who does not exist. No one can have cheezburger, there isn't one. The cat is not yet smart enough to realize this. Lol @ you you dumb cat there's no God, pwn3d

cosi fan whitford (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 03:15 (eleven years ago) link

incidentally have you heard the new Eyehazgod album

kitty shayme (some dude), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 03:19 (eleven years ago) link

haaaa

goole, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 03:20 (eleven years ago) link

Is Bill Hicks the transitional figure between L Bruce's transgressive/progressive vanguard and the stereotype-ridden, anti-PC shock humor employed by Howard Stern, Seth Macfarlane, and Ric Delgado?

i don't think hicks has been all that influential on mainstream humor in the u.s. -- he was barely ever on TV and was virtually unknown here till he died. he got a posthumous cult following but i see him as more a one-off guy than any kind of transitional figure. his style of humor is also completely different from those guys imo -- i can't see any hicks influence in macfarlane, for sure.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 05:34 (eleven years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.