Eva Woods doesn’t like Seth MacFarlane’s dullwitted, offensive schtick. But she is glad that it exists.
Before we get too deeply into this, I just want to make one thing very clear—I do not like Seth MacFarlane. Never have, never will. (It really matters to me that you all know this.)
This is about something bigger than yesterday’s Oscar shenanigans, but so you understand what compelled me to write it, here are the relevant details: Last night and this morning Twitter exploded after The Onion tweeted a joke about a 9 year old girl being the c-word. This post is not meant to defend the merits of that joke, or of any joke in particular.
The reason I wrote this is because after reading Pia Glenn’s article about it on xojane.com (go read it, it is excellent and funny and smart) I looked around for a serious defense of offensive comedy and I couldn’t find one.
So I decided to give it a shot.
When we talk about objections to jokes, there are two common arguments: The first is that a joke went too far over the line, that it was more offensive than funny, and that social mores don’t disappear just because we’re in Comedyland.
The second is that comedians have a responsibility to if not work against social problems, then at least not to give the jerks who honestly believe racist/misogynist/fuckwittist things the ammo they need to take down their favorite targets.
I want to talk about the problems with both of these arguments. Before that, though, I want to point out that NONE of this matters if you don’t value comedy.
If you see comedy as inherently unimportant, then none of this will matter to you. If you think that it’s more important not to offend, and that it is always more important to right social ills than it is to make jokes, this won’t apply to you. I understand that perspective, even if I don’t share it, and it’s a different article than this one. This is for people who truly appreciate the art of comedy, but who might sometimes feel conflicted about the effect it can have on the world around them.
♦◊♦
“He crossed the line.”
This is the sentiment I’m encountering most frequently on Twitter. That, and it’s corollary: It wasn’t funny/wasn’t even a joke.
Let’s knock these out one at a time.
The problem with crossing “the line” is that the line isn’t in one place. Maybe kids are off limits, because they’re across the line. Maybe only making rough jokes about those in positions of power is okay, because the weak are across the line. Maybe you’ll get really mad at a joke about killing cats, but not killing Rush Limbaugh. Cats are across your line.
My father is funny. He’s witty and smart and a huge Dave Chappelle fan, and can work blue when he needs to. But he’s also a Christian. To him, God is across the line.
I have a Dashboard Jesus. My dad does NOT think it’s funny. He thinks it’s disrespectful and blasphemous.
I think it’s hilarious.
And here’s the thing: We’re both right. It’s funny, disrespectful and blasphemous.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. Christians are the dominant religion—picking on them is okay in America. I’m right, Dad’s wrong.
But what if Dad was Jewish? Would I still be right? What if he was a Scientologist? I mean, they’re hilarious, but they’re definitely not the dominant religion, and MOST of them aren’t powerful.
What if I had a Dashboard Muhammed?
Now, Dad is allowed not to like my Jesus. He’s allowed to not ride in my car because of it. He’s allowed to tell me why he doesn’t like it, that I’m fucking up by having it, and that it’s not funny. But he can’t tell me not to have it, cause he’s not the boss of me and because that Dashboard Jesus is hilarious.
My point—that I’m making overly obvious as befits the not-writer I am—is that our lines aren’t in the same place. And while Dad (or you) can tell me I’m wrong, well, I’m ALLOWED to be wrong.
Now let’s talk about the other side, the “That wasn’t a joke, it was an insult/ threat/ display of rampant racism” or “It was wrong because it wasn’t funny.” side.
How are we defining comedy? Is it “something said with the intention of getting a laugh”? Or is it “something I think is funny and appropriate”?
Because for every person mad at a shithead joke, there’s another person laughing. I might agree with one of them or the other, but that’s still just my opinion. I will never tell someone to get offended at something they’re not offended by, just like I will never tell someone NOT to be offended by something they ARE offended by.
Oh, but “Threats Are Never Funny!”, “Racism Is Never Funny!”, “Abortion Is Never Funny!”, “Murder Is Never Funny!”
Now we’re back to where to place that line.
Moving on! (“Finally!” you scream.)
Let’s jump over to the social responsibility of comedians, with their voices in all those ears.
Should Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Louis CK, with their huge influence on America’s young people use their platforms for social good, or—at least—not for social harm?
Yeah, I think so. I also think they already do. But there are tons of people who disagree with me.
Lots of people think Jon Stewart gets on the air 5 days a week and poisons the mind of our youth with a biased, liberal agenda of lies. I think those people are wrong, but I don’t think they are less valuable than me. Or that their beliefs are less strongly held than mine. I think they’re wrong, end of sentence. Luckily, bunches of people agree with me, and with our viewership, we keep The Daily Show on the air. We vote for those beliefs with our time and our eyeballs. The same way an epic asshole such as Sean Hannity gets kept on the air with other people’s time and eyeballs.
But say I’m wrong, and the first amendment shouldn’t apply to hateful people and that public voices can only work to do good. Let’s pretend that for a minute.
Colbert and CK wouldn’t be the only ones affected by such a change. What about the comic performing to crowds of 50 on the best night of his career? Can he be hateful? What about me, on my Twitter? I have 300 followers. What if I had 1?
What if the rule were: You don’t have to do good, you just can’t do harm? You don’t have to champion social change from the mic stand, you just can’t say anything offensive (to the greater good we are pretending isn’t arbitrary)
If we all agree on this greater good, the inherent absurdity of the human condition *goes away*. And with it, go a lot of jokes. You might be glad they’re gone, but I’m not. I will miss them as much as I would miss my Dashboard Jesus if he suddenly raptured his way out of my car.
So, send Daniel Tosh an email, and for heaven’s sake don’t go to his shows. Unfollow the Onion. Vote with your eyeballs. But don’t let criticism of comedy turn into prescription of comedy. Because when you do that, you’re telling me that my values are wrong, and what’s more, my wrongness means I don’t get a vote anymore.
And that vote matters to me. If every comic who ever made a terrible, indefensible joke was gone, I couldn’t use that vote to determine what they do next, and I want that freedom. A world in which no one is ever in danger of being offended is a world where Family Circus and Jay Leno are as good as comedy gets and that’s not a world I want to live in.
Photo—Chris Pizzello/AP
Leave a Reply
51 Comments on "In Defense of Offensive Comedy"
.
Speaking of Louis CK, doesn’t he have a routine where he describes his own daugher as an asshole and a c**t? That sounds a lot less subtle than the Onion’s tweet, but you’d never know it given how breathlessly people (especially on gender issues blogs) talk about him.
Feels like if it’s a comedian the social justice warriors have been plugging ad nauseam suddenly it’s not a big deal.
I am all for social justice! And father’s and mother’s not joking about how their own children our curse words. Do we know how Louis CK’s daugther feels about being called those names? How many men here today would enjoy their wives, girlfriends or daughters joking about calling them four letter words?
But hey, you want to call your own daughter an asshole or a c**t, go ahead. I bet she will respect you as much as you respect her.
If you dislike both Louis CK and The Onion for doing essentially the same thing, then I have far less of a problem with that – it’s at least being consistent.
What I have a problem with is selective outrage over what the Onion did, but not Louis CK.
watch this video. Patrice puts it beautifully. Your comparing jokes intentionally made for humor not hurting anybody.. Those people you listed stood up for actions happening to others. Jokes are words not sticks and stones, love.
http://youtu.be/fjIuPSuYSOY
Woah, what’s with the personal attacking? I’m scratching my head over here. It’s fine to disagree with my opinion and have reasonable comments and reasons why you disagree. But that’s not really what you are doing. You are no longer having a reasonable discussion Daniel. You are simply being abusive at this point. It’s unfortunate that you do not know how to handle talking to someone you disagree with skillfully, reasonably and intelligently.
Daniel, your comments speak for themselves. You’ve been very abusive. You’ve made your points personal attacks. You continue to do so here as well. By the way, I am not bothered by your comments. They are outlandish and untrue. However, the fact remains, your abusive. That’s your issue, not mine.
You are free to speculate all you want about where I come from and where I live. I don’t mind! I’m not here to prove anything to you either. 🙂 I know who I am.
You know who you are.. but we dont. You could beat little kids and men for all i know.. You are bothered by my comments i can tell just the way you are bothered by comedy and words. A lot of words bother you. you label them abusive so you are protected.
Who is this “we”? *You* could beat little kids and women for all I know. Knowing where I live doesn’t change that. I could also be an art thief, steal old ladies purses, run ponzi schemes…but then again, so could you. All this is pointless to the focus of the conversation.
I label your words abusive because that’s simply the reality.
[…] I like offensive/blue/irreverent/edgy comedy and am happy to defend it so long as it is punching up. Boobs is a funny word, so are most curse words and scatalogical phrases. It’s funny, for about 10 seconds to see someone singing a song about boobs or wangs. It’s also about eight years of age in terms of it’s maturity and looking at the “meta” of his set up, that he was doing the jokes but then not doing them…like, even more of a passive aggressive dig. […]
People who say “I’m offended” (about comedy or anything else) are simply telling the world I’m such a mental/emotional child that I can’t control my own emotions & think the world should do it for me.
Life is hard & mean, and no one has a right to not be offended. People need to grow up.
A lot of people lose sight of the difference between “I’m offended” and “It’s offensive.” The first comment is legitimate.
Of what I saw, Seth MacFarlane was funny and executed his role very well. The reaction of the press and the resulting bandwagon of offended people afterwards was also pretty funny. Always amusing to see people get so wound up over nothing.
See, but the thing is, it’s nothing to YOU. YOU think it’s nothing. But who are you to decide what’s funny and what’s not and what’s offensive and what’s not?
Why is your opinion on it being nothing any more or less valid than the opinion of those people who were offended. You can’t call something “nothing” as a blanket statement.
Eva, you broke the Internet. You wrote such a reasoned, rational article that no one’s even fighting or being mean in the comments.
Be quiet, Marissa.
Stop oppressing me with your inability to spell.
**but then runs away crying**
*Shouts at her as she runs*
“The dramatic fleeing while sobbing schtick is my thing! You’re going to hear from my lawyers!”
The Oscars is just so unbearably dull… I can’t watch it for my life….I just like looking at the dresses online….
It’s just Hollywood….is that a sacred cow you can’t make fun of?
(Kathy Griffin or Louis CK for next year…and maybe I will watch!)
This is the most eloquent and intelligent take on the whole Oscar fervor I have seen. You did an incredible job here and I agree with you 100%. Kudos.
[…] These are comments by Doc Holligay, Allan Mott, Lindsey, and Richard Morgan on the post “In Defense of Offensive Comedy“. […]
Seth MacFarlane actually starred in Family Circus XXX. True fact.
Hahahaha.
This is an amazing comment. Nothing to add. Thank you.
Julie, do you ever watch Family Guy?
I feel too few people understand him. I’m not his #1 fan, but Family Guy is REALLY smart and takes the piss out of basically everything you possibly ever could take the piss out of.
It’s worth watching, if you haven’t ever seen it, the Family Guy retelling of the birth of baby Jesus. It’s pretty fucking amazing.
Yeah, that’s the thing. I like Family Guy. I think what he does works in that format. I don’t think what he did worked at the Oscars.
You know, I agree with this perspective, and I totally didn’t expect to. Well done, Eva!
Thanks!
As usual, Eva wins. I have a really hard time with offensive humor because I have an awful superpower of intensely feeling uncomfortable myself if someone I see/am with/ imagine is uncomfortable. This is why I am unable to watch Ben Stiller films. It’s kind of a bummer, but it’s my life. Other people have the right to do the same.
Also, Seth MacFarlane brought back Cosmos and is good friends with Ann Druyan so that means he has to be at least 1% not awful.
Like Peter Petrelli on HEROES?!
Um yes? I watched that show like twice. Was he Rory Gilmore’s bad kid bf?
Yes!
I don’t think the concern was that as few people as possible heard it. I think it’s important to talk about our criticisms of comedy. It’s more the absolute “that’s over THE line” that I wanted to address.
A lot of the commentary I saw was about how injurious the joke was to its subject, so I think the fact that this very commentary spread the reach of the joke and possibly inflamed the injury is kinda relevant.
And I know what your post was about, Eva. Don’t make me take my edits back. E|:)
Don’t forget The Streisand Effect!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Yeah, I believe people have every right to be critical of anything that offends them, but just as how free speech has it consequences, so does criticism of said speech. Very often when outraged critics go after a target they have the unintended effect of turning what was once obscure and niche into a viable mainstream product. It’s just something else to consider–is it worth decrying something if one of the major results of your condemnation is that it becomes better known (and potentially more popular) than it was before you said anything?
Naomi Watts’ face at her mention in that song was AMAZING.
Have you never heard the phrase ‘cross the line twice’?
It was hilarious precisely because it was about a 9 year-old kid. They couldn’t have possibly meant it, because only a crazy person looks at a child and thinks, “what a ****”. It was laughably mean-spirited and over the top.
The most annoying thing in the world, to me, is people who think that it’s their job to police my sense of humor. Seriously, **** those people. With a rusty garden trowel.