After reading fellow Independent Writer, Katrina Cassar’s article regarding political correctness in comedy, I found that we disagree. Therefore, since The Third Eye has given the both of us a platform to share our opinions as students, I wanted to reply to Katrina’s article in hopes to have an open discussion on Political Correctness in comedy and even as a general topic.
Katrina’s argument seems to be based on the idea of Punching up vs Punching down when it comes to comedy. Although this is for sure a real concept I believe Cassar to be mistaken when viewing comedy as only serving that particular function. This notion presupposes that every joke is predicated on the idea that the target has more power (punching up) or less power (punching down) than the comedian. Essentially it is viewing the relationship between a comedian and the target of a joke as one solely based on power.
This is wrong on a fundamental level as viewing that relationship as purely power based comes with certain implications that are not entirely true. Power, in its truest sense, is the ability to manipulate and/or control someone else’s behaviour. Therefore, to say that one person or group has more power than others is to say that it has more control over them. This is fundamentally wrong as human relationships are not based on power.
However for the sake of debate, let us say this is entirely the case and comedy either punches up or down and nothing else. Then are we going to cease to make jokes about the less powerful? And what precisely categorises the less powerful as such? Is it socio-economic status? Is it an oppressive history? Are those less powerful permanently so or can that change? There is a level of irony that comes with protecting groups from jokes. If you want to hold people accountable and do that through comedy, the moment you protect a group from comedy, you are elevating it above the rest. Therefore, actively discriminating against both groups.
I disagree further with Katrina’s idea that comedy has always been political. Even though at some moments it can be. Viewing it as a weapon of sorts to combat differing political ideologies takes away from its value as an artform. Comedy is much more of an artform than it is a political tool or weapon.
It is well and truly clear that political correctness in comedy has gone too far. You get comedians cancelled and censored on social media because of jokes they made up decades ago that we considered fine until some twitter warrior decided to get outraged. If it somehow is not clear that PC culture has gone too far for some, maybe they should posit the question that it has not gone far enough for their own liking.
I fully believe that aiming to protect “the less powerful” from comedy targeted at them sets a dangerous precedent. Firstly, one must define exactly what they mean by less powerful. On what would you base that? Is it race or sex or gender or sexual orientation? If you were to automatically assume that because of someone’s race or gender they have less power, then is that not precisely the discrimination you were advocating against? It is already faulty to view that relationship based on power. But assuming one has less power because of race or gender is nothing but the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Joking about harmful stereotypes does not reinforce them, it ridicules them. This is what I believe the author here has not grasped quite well. She argues that making jokes about a less powerful group reinforces those stereotypes. This however is completely wrong in my view. Being able to ironically point out the stupid and illogical nature of a stereotype and make it funny, discredits that stereotype. Think of it as making fun of yourself. It helps you cope with your own insecurities. Laughing at what plagues you is what makes you unbeatable. Because if what damages you can’t bring you down, then what will?
Attempting to protect a certain group from being made fun of is not compassionate, it is tyrannical. A king becomes a tyrant when he can no longer stand the fool. It is discriminatory to exempt a particular group from jokes and it is NOT discriminatory to let everyone be hit by them.. Comedians should be able to mock and satirize about whatever they please. If done well, they should get their credit. If not, they should be criticised. But cancelling them? What does that achieve?
In a passage Katrina writes “It can reinforce harmful gender norms and contribute to violence and abuse.” This was the part which I do not really understand. Is the author implying that jokes contribute to violence and abuse? Where is the evidence for this? How does it do so? What are these gender norms? In that paragraph the author mentions terms and buzz words but does not elaborate to really let the readers picture how jokes can have this effect.
Lastly, if one was to propose protection from jokes for a particular group than it is fair to say that one does not want equality between those groups. If one is advocating for special treatment than that goes against everything Liberals used to believe in. Equality means putting everyone in the same boat. Comedy is no different. So, if you want equality, you have to accept it in all forms.
This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.