Read the prompt below, and state your claim, and have one paragraph to support it. This must reach 250 words, and make sure to comment on two other posts.
In his 2004 book, Status Anxiety, Alain de Botton argues that the chief aim of humorists is not merely to entertain
but “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” Because society
allows humorists to say things that other people cannot or will not say, de Botton sees humorists as serving a vital
function in society.
Think about the implications of de Botton’s view of the role of humorists (cartoonists, stand-up comics, satirical
writers, hosts of television programs, etc.). Then write a claim and paragraph that defends, challenges, or qualifies de Botton’s
claim about the vital role of humorists. Use specific, appropriate evidence to develop your position.
Even though it is true that humor allows one to convey messages that they wouldn't be able to share directly, it is also possible that humor can be misused or overused and can potentially understate a situation that is very serious. I actually believe that this misuse or overuse of humor that understates a situation is something that occurs very often in my generation. It is very common nowadays for teenagers to say that they are OCD or are depressed as a joke, in order to exaggerate how they are really feeling. However there are people who are suffering and are debilitated by these conditions, and such joking can be disrespectful to them. In addition, whenever anything happens these days, honestly anything, the first thing my generation does is turn it into a meme. For example, the beginning of this year, WWIII memes went absolutely viral. While I admit that some of these memes were absolutely hilarious, is something as serious as the World Wars be a topic that we joke about? I mean, millions of people died in those wars, families were torn apart, land ives were ruined. Of course, I'm sure that many people who partook in such humor didn't mean to be disrespectful or cause any harm. In fact, even I sometimes indulged is such humor and I certainly never had any intention to hurt anyone with those jokes. However, where do we draw the line of, this topic is to serious to joke about? Even though humorists can potentially make jokes about topics that should not be joked about, humorist play a very important role is society by revealing messages that could otherwise not be revealed. For example, political cartoons play a critical role is shaping the publics opinion. In the mid to late 1800s, Thomas Nast created cartoons that depicted the corrupted and influential politician "Boss Tweed" as a thief. These cartoons were critical to the downfall of these corrupted and powerful politicians. There are many examples like this one where humor is a more effective way of communication than directly stating something, but like everything, too much humor could possibly have negative consequences of being hurtful and disrespectful.
ReplyDeleteI think most people are unable to pick up on irony, which makes it hard for the humorist's opinions to be heeded. People often take say inflammatory things and retract it by saying it was a joke, but some things shouldn't be joked about.
DeleteI really like how you gave a real world example such as the World War, sometimes a joke can be humor and lets some laugh, but to others who have experienced the pain and have suffered loss that only they feel, it could inconsiderate in the sense that we as people who have no real connection with such a deep issue, and laugh because nothing has hurt us from it.
DeleteIt is true that message conveyed in humor can either help or hurt. Although unintentionally, sometimes it causes anger and misunderstanding. It is fine to be hilarious but with tactfulness. Humorist should be careful in delivering specially when it comes to sensitive issues.
DeleteI really liked what you said about WW3 too. We overlook serious events and turn them into jokes when we should be worried and take action. The role of comedians is so widespread that it should be used to spread positive messages.
DeleteI like how you questioned if something should be allowed to be joked about just because it is funny. I think most of the time we don't think about how it could possibly affect others.
DeleteIt's not even just with people who exaggerate about themselves through mental problems/disorders, but also others. It is very common thing in our schools. I do like how you brought this issue up.
DeleteWhile humorists are able disclose taboo issues by angling critiques of societal issues in a humorous light, their critiques do not necessarily bring about a significant change in people’s actions., and instead serve to contribute to the nihilistic philosophy of the rising generation. Comedians often mock stereotypes as a way of raising awareness to systematic states of mind but don’t offer a solution to the problem. Raising awareness is definitely the first step to solving a problem, but comedians will often exaggerate the problem to get a reaction from their audiences. This reaction cements the audience’s attentiveness as an enraged audience will remember words better than a bored audience, but it also serves to make light of a serious problem. Above all, a comedian must be funny- otherwise, he or she will be out of a job. They often sacrifice the seriousness of an issue for cheap laughs. This leaves the audience with a feeling of disconnect: they recognize this larger social issue but link it to their laughter aren’t offered a way to help this problem, leading to an misconception that there is nothing that can be done about this issue, and the issue might not even be as serious as they first perceived it as. Almost every African American stand-up comedian includes jokes about how white people view them, and these jokes are funny and connect with the audience but also serve to isolate black Americans from white Americans. It reinforces the fact that black Americans constantly feel as though white Americans have a superiority complex over them, and discrimination and racial bias still hasn’t gone away even after slavery being abolished for over 200 years. And with no solution offered on how to solve this dilemma, what are African Americans supposed to do? Donate to a charity? But people who donate to charities never really see what their money has contributed to, so who’s to say that the money was useful? Of course by donating to a charity progress is made but it’s not so easily seen, and without any way to link someone’s effort to progress how can he or she know whether he or she has contributed to solving the problem? So many people don’t donate and stay in a strange limbo where they want to help solve the problem, but do not have a rewarding way to do so. This inability to help leads the mind to reject the motivation to help and people live their lives thinking that they are unable to make a difference in the destructive world around them. Comedians often try to bring about societal change with their jokes, but with no idea of how to evoke change or what change even looks like, their audience is unable to influence the societal mindset, and may even adopt a nihilistic viewpoint to cope with their perceived inaction on a momentous issue or society’s inability to right its wrongs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the part that criticize the comedians for turning serious issues into a joke because I also wrote about it in my essay. I could really offend the audeince.
DeleteI like how you mentioned that humorists exaggerate the problem in order to get a reaction, sometimes what is told is not the whole scenario that actually played out, just for a laugh people go overboard, and there is a line to jokes as well and it is essential that people know where the line is and to not cross it, because it shouldn't offend anyone.
DeleteI like how you included that though humorists can raise awareness about an issue through their acts, they don't necessarily offer a solution. I also agree that humor can often be overused to take the seriousness of an issue away.
DeleteHumorists have always based their work on current events. At the end of the day, however, humorists are still just humans that have their own opinions. By having their own platform and followers they might believe they can project their viewpoints onto others, but very rarely will they actually inflict change. This is because the people that follow him or her most likely already have the same viewpoints, and if they do not, it’s possible they’ll stop supporting the entertainer after hearing them speak on an issue in a way they don’t agree with, no matter what side they’re on. A comedian’s place in the world is to entertain and make people laugh. No one watches a stand-up comedy show as a reliable news source. People watch it to laugh. And if the comedian happens to touch on a political or societal conflict, it’s always intertwined with humor and obvious bias. Late night television hosts aren’t meant to be people’s main source of current events, but rather a commentary of them after the fact. Even political cartoonists in large publications don’t offer compelling reasons for change. When was the last time a cartoon sparked a social movement? They’re just an opinion of an already-existing issue, or a distraction from the drama. Really, when humor is involved it takes away the realness from an issue. Humor is a way for humans to escape the harsh realities of life, and simply have a laugh. Trying to get the consumers of comedians to actually go about and create change in the world is never going to happen. This is especially true because why would humans trust someone who can never be serious? If their only job is to make jokes, how does that make them a credible speaker on an important issue? It doesn’t, but that’s okay because humorists’ function in society is to entertain, not to spark large-scale societal change.
ReplyDeletethis is a very interesting take tbh! i understand where your points are coming from regarding people not searching for comedy in order to understand politics, and how it may not enact social change. but personally i think a lot of things can be abstractly inspiring, it just depends on the person
DeleteI agree on your take of a comedian’s audience. The lack of differing views in the crowd does diminish one’s ability to make change as the comedian basically has the same view as the people he is speaking to.
DeleteI also agree that humorists use their platform to help express their viewpoints on certain issues. The use of comedy is definitely a great strategy in doing so.
DeleteI agree with your point that the purpose of comedians is to entertain, but when you watch the most successful and influential comedians, they talk about serious issues in their shows. I feel that they are able to inflict change on their audience even though the audience wasn't there to learn about social issues.
DeleteI really like your take on comedians in the sense that the jokes they make aren't supposed to be taken in a real and world-changing manner. Their whole job is based around entertaining and making an audience laugh.
DeleteI found your take on humorists very interesting! I like how you spoke about how humor takes away the realness of certain pressing issues.
DeleteHumorist's important role in society does permit them to use ways that normal people can't to critique an issue; however, it does not give them the power to use offense words or turn serious issues into a joke.
ReplyDeleteWhether something is "offensive" or not is really based on the audience of a humorist. For example, on Kevin Hart's comedy shows, he uses the N-word many times as a joke, and the audience did not take that seriously. However, if a white humorist says that word as a joke in an African American neighborhood, it will be taken seriously and offensively. We can see here that the same term, when used in front of different audiences, have different results that sometimes end in conflict. While being a humorist does permit more freedom when using offensive words, it is also very important for the humorist to research in order to know how offensive words or stereotypes affect their audiences. This prevents the comedian from accidentally saying something offensive and get sued by the audience which would be a lose-lose situation. A humorist's most important job is to be funny in front of the audience; however, in this case, being funny did not lead to laughter and praises, but instead, it led to conflicts. the same thing could happen if comedians also use their job to turn serious issues into a joke when presenting it to the audience. When a student says that he is going to shoot up the school as a joke in a group chat, he got arrested the next day at school. This example actually happened at Troy high which proves that many people are not taking serious issues seriously and using them as a joke to entertain. Most of the time, people will just laugh it off because serious issues usually only affect a small portion of people. However, when the audience is deeply affected by that issue, like in this example, it will not be offensive to the audience and again lead to conflict.
I agree that some comedians take it too far with their jokes, it's hard to find a balance between seriousness and humor.
DeleteYou do a good job of highlighting the fact that audience plays such a large role in how humor is received
DeleteThis is a very interesting point. It is very true that some important issues show be handled in a serious matter rather than a humorous one. Great job!
DeleteI agree that in different perspectives, certain jokes could not be seen as jokes and can be taken more serious. I like the different examples you used to back up your claim
DeleteI do believe that the audience is very important in communication including humor. I know many people with whom I can't tell if they are being sarcastic or not. It is also true with me sometimes from other people's perspective. To truly show that you are joking or something, there has to be a facial expression or something in the piece that gives it away.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI believe Alain de Button’s claim, the chief aim of humorists is not merely to entertain but “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly,” is partly correct, as I think humorists share messages that cannot be stated directly, but I don’t think they are always able to with impunity. In today’s culture, comedy is used to bring up important topics. It is shown that “an emotional response is actually more important in getting people engaged”(Borum Chattoo). And this “emotional response,” is brought out through comedy. Comedians and Tv show host repeatedly bring up important topics that need to be discussed. And they do so in a non direct and humorous way so that people understand and get engaged. However, a lot of times they over exaggerate to get their point across. Humorists tend to have strong opinions and want to use their platform as a way to bring certain topics up. However, most of the time, the topics are controversial, resulting in backlash from their audience. Recently, Kathy Griffin received major backlash after a comedy stint where she did a photo shoot with a bloodied Donald Trump head. She did so to voice her opinions on the president. However, Kathy took the joke to far and received a lot of backlash. Although she didn’t directly state that the president should be killed, she was not able to “convey (her message) with impunity” and neither are other humorists who want to voice their opinions on important topics.
I like how you supported his claim but also criticized what was wrong about it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt is true that when comedy goes too far it can backlash. Kathy Griffin has been fired by her producers and is now having a hard time finding work. Comedy is suppose to be informative, entertaining and make people feel better. How can this type of comedy be at all. Comedy need not be offensive and deriding.
DeleteI definitely agree that humorists do not have full impunity when it comes to conveying a message through comedy. Your Kathy Griffith example was a really good one because in today's age where people are very sensitive to opinions(especially exaggerated ones). Humorists have had a lot less freedom in expressing themselves recenly than humorists in the past, which might mean that they are losing their platform slowly.
DeleteI liked the part about Kathy Griffin, and I believe that it's no longer comedy once it becomes controversial and can give the humorist or anyone else backlash. It shows that full impunity does not really exist.
DeleteI agree with your stance on the claim, and liked how you brought up a specific example to support your belief. The part about Kathy Griffin is a perfect example on how comedians can sometimes take jokes a bit too far and their message can get lost in their joke.
DeleteAlthough some humorists can be offensive or cross the line with some jokes, many of them are using their platform to speak about social issues and actually make a change. Many issues are very serious and therefore uncomfortable to talk about in public. However, comedians bypass this obstacle by using humor to make their audience more comfortable and open to considering tough social problems. Therefore, they can reach more people and call them to make a change. One good example is South African comedian Trevor Noah. He hosts the Daily Show where he talks about current American politics and major world news. Trevor also frequently speaks about racism in both America and South Africa, a normally serious issue which he overlays with satire. People coming to watch the show for entertainment, therefore, are roped into thinking about society and their own impact on this issue. Trevor also wrote a humorous book about his upbringing in South Africa’s Apartheid which brought to light the lack of opportunities for black children in the country due to past systematic oppression and poverty. This book is somewhat of a call to action, so Trevor founded a nonprofit organization that helps poverty-stricken kids in Johannesburg get a good education and have opportunities after graduation. Another example is Australian comedian Hannah Gadsby who identifies as a lesbian. She wrote and performed Nanette, a comedic Netflix special about her life with a lot of social commentary and self-deprecating humor. The reason she makes jokes about herself and her homosexuality is to take the power away from people who make fun of her and her community. If the victims can laugh at and make fun of themselves, the words of others have no effect. Humorists are usually seen as only entertaining, but, many serve the deeper purpose of encouraging and bringing about social change.
ReplyDeletethese are great examples molli!! i read trevor´s book last year and i really enjoyed it (even tho i never finished it lol). i totally agree with what you said about his mechanisms with comedy in order to reveal the injustices of his life in south africa
DeleteHumorists are gravely important to the functionality of society when under certain pressures or changes in global situations that cause people to generally feel uncomfortable or otherwise negative emotions that are not easy to deal with. For example, American political commentator and comedian Hasan Minhaj uses his show Patriot Act in order to delve into the fallacies and hypocrisies of American politics. The atmosphere of his show is generally satirical and aimed to be a comedy hour, but the purpose of his jokes are to expose American injustices. His show gains millions of viewers on Netflix because it creates a portal for people to position themselves in a mindset to hear critiques of American culture and action that might otherwise overwhelm or shock them. In contrast, a regular political commentator may not garner as much attention as one who strives to do so with the medium of comedy because there is no easier method of hearing such things. Especially regarding the politics and covered up history of the United States, a lot of the truths that are exposed are very powerful and extract intense reactions from those who hear them. Therefore, humorists are a key component of understanding social issues and unlearning propaganda or group mentalities implemented throughout life. Without humorists, many people would be too sensitive to force themselves to discuss intense topics. Even outside of politics, comedy is generally used as a coping mechanism for a lot of human beings. With grief; social anxiety; awkward silences; and hard transitions throughout life; humor and irony are strategically used to make life easier.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your view that some comedians are able to help audiences see the injustices of America. I also liked that you added that comedy outside of politics can have a positive impact, as these types of comedies can help audiences laugh during tough times.
DeleteI think it is very true that some comedians help society find its flaws. I really liked how you included Hasan Minhaj's show as an example. It really shows how comedians are able to bring awareness to important issues in a satirical manner.
DeleteIt is so true that the job of comedians is almost to help society become exposed to emotions that can be difficult to deal with. It’s also interesting how people’s sensitivities can be impacted as a result of humor.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHumorists can shed light on issues in society; however, their main goal in the end is to get a laugh out of their audiences.
ReplyDeleteDoes an audience actually analyze or even think about a comedian’s joke? Most people go to a comedy show to laugh; they don’t want to think about the issues that are happening in their own society. That’s a problem for another day. So, let them laugh. Don’t make them have an existential crisis about the world right now. That’s not your job; that’s the audience’s job. Heck, the audience probably goes to a comedy show to get rid of their existential crises, which just means the audience is not doing their jobs.
With exaggeration co-existing in our world, people can’t tell whether statements are true or not (they don’t care either), but that’s what makes it hilarious. Humorists love to use exaggeration. They blow things out of proportion to the point where it’s so unbelievable: it’s funny. It’s mostly prominent in jokes about suicide, depression, mental illnesses, divorce, race, feminism, etc. Today’s students love to say: “I’m actually going to kill myself if I screw this up.” You’re going to respond with two choices (that are paraphrased from experience): a) “Are you okay? If you need someone, I’m here for you,” or b) “Honestly, mood”. Are you actually going to kill yourself? Is the school stressing you out with too many assessments? Are your parents stressing you out with too many expectations? Are tiger parents still a thing? I don’t know, just laugh.
It’s not the comedian’s job to deliver a message on how the world is poorly operated or whatever and we should do something about it. They’re here to deliver jokes, and jokes are not meant to be taken seriously. If you want to talk about how the world is messed up, then that’s your job. Protest about it. Make a campaign. Civil disobedience. Get in the news because everyone watches the news and be sure to show everyone how messed up the world is. Make it seem like an important issue and not a joke.
I think this is an interesting view that by comedians using comedy to expose a subject it takes all the seriousness away from the issue. I also agree with your example that people exaggerate too much for comedy, especially relating with depression.
DeleteI completely agree with your stance that humorists use exaggeration to get a laugh. This only brings out a surface level introduction to an issue. For change to truly occur in society, there needs to be seriousness tied to the jokes and awareness. I liked your use of rhetorical questions in this arguement.
DeleteI like how you were able to lots of evidence in supporting how comedians only goal are to just make us laugh instead of truly trying to expose an issue.
DeleteI agree with the sentiment that the end goal of many humorists is to exaggerate and make people laugh. Neither the audience nor the humorist is overly concerned with the underlying issues in their jokes. They might acknowledge that, yeah depression and anxiety is a real problem in today's youth, but are they making jokes about these topics in order to combat them? I don't think so.
DeleteI like how you talked about the reality of students and how they joke around about very serious topics. It shows how important things like depression and suicide are now considered funny.
DeleteWhile humorists are able to affect change by bringing attention to otherwise unknown issues, they are not immune to consequences from saying jokes that are overly offensive.
ReplyDeleteMany comedians use their platform in order to showcase issues that are important to them. For example, John Oliver, a popular comedy show host, discusses different problems each week in his show. Often at the end, he puts a link on the screen where people can donate money to a charity that fights against the issue he discusses. By doing this, he is able to create meaningful change just by bringing attention to an issue that most people don't know about. However, some comedians may cross the line of what is acceptable. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Bill Maher disputed George W. Bush's claims that the terrorists were cowardly. Bill Maher said that we have been the cowards, by lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. He also said that the crashing of planes, while the pilots were in them, was not cowardly. These comments led to advertisers pulling their ads on the show and eventually the show being canceled. In these two situations, we are able to see how Botton's claim compares to comedy today. In the case of John Oliver, he is able to emphasize concerns important to him and serves a "vital function in society". However, in the case of Bill Maher, the opinion of Botton is challenged. Since he gets in trouble, by having advertisers pulling out of his show and his show being cancelled, he is not able to "convey with impunity" controversial claims.
I agree, it's really easy to say insensitive things and go too far. But since comedians are famous people, they have influence and shouldn't be impulsive because every move that they make will be scrutinized.
DeleteComedy must be used in a wholesome manner, in order to keep our daily lives balanced, light and funny and stay as within the boundaries of social and moral ethics without being offensive.
ReplyDeleteComedy and entertainment from newspapers and comic books are fading away. Although there are still few people who reads "intelligent" books and articles, not because of lack of interest but mostly lack of time. It is easier sometimes to watch tv for information and entertainment, say an hour, rather than to finish a book. In all honesty satirical writing is something we only read in our English class. On the other hand, comedians on late night television, catering to a more mature audience, are the mainstream humorists. That's why they all have million dollar contracts. In almost every late night shows, these comedians find it almost impossible to stay away from politics. If these hosts are genuine comedians, they should avoid politics and focus on more light-hearted subjects that pleases a larger audience, promote unity, peace and love, then they can be better contributor to our society. Some hosts have actually refused to discuss politics on their show like David Spade. True comedy does not need to be derogatory and insulting, especially to someone holding a public office and representing our great nation. One can exercise their right of free speech and criticize leaders on policies in a more civil style. However, these tv hosts take a radical step in wrong direction, their comments if said elsewhere could land someone in a serious conflict. If used properly humorists can benefit us all, especially the younger generation, but if used for selfish political, financial in one's own personal agenda, it could be misleading to the audience and detrimental to the general public.
I agree with the sentiment that people are reading less and less, and acquire entertainment through other modes. However I think humor and politics can go hand in hand because politics isn't perfect - there are flaws in it. I believe that humor provides a more approachable method of discussing those flaws.
DeleteI like how you said true comedy stays away from insulting others. Proper humor should be for everyone, not just people of a particular stance.
DeleteAlthough the humorous nature of satire allows it to convey messages that are otherwise impossible to, it also infringes upon the authority of the message. Therefore, while humorists are able to depict a broader range of subjects, their role in society is diminished by their use of humor.
ReplyDeleteBy portraying issues in a satirical manner, a humorist will downplay the significance of it. The presentation of an issue as satire will cause others to see it not as a pressing issue but a insignificant subject of humor as with the subjects of other humor. This effect is furthered by the fact that most humorists do not present any method of correcting an issue. Nevertheless, satire and other forms of humor are important in that they are capable of attracting attention. More than those using other forms of communication, humorists are able to convey a message without the loss of attention due to their use of humor, as most people are more likely to attend to a humorous presentation of information rather than a mundane informational presentation. This does not mean that humor alone is able to cause change. While humor is able to captivate attention, more authoritative methods of presenting information are better at depicting the significance of information and having that information be retained. Furthermore, an informational presentation is better able to convey methods of correcting an issue. Thus, while humorists themselves are unable to effectively convey a message, they are vital in that they can be used in conjunction with others.
I agree that humorists would lessen the impact of an issue due to their comedic approach. I liked that you provided examples of ways to present issues in a more effective way in comparison to humor.
DeleteI loved your point about how humorists do not do anything to provide solutions to society's flaws. Yes, they do call attention to injustices in a subtle manner, but how much can that actually do without a plan of action after?
DeleteI agree with your point in that humorists can do a good job in identifying problems, but not being able to provide solutions to them effectively. Humorists rely on other to identify how to fix the issue when they present a problem.
DeleteIn moderation, like all things, humorists can be a powerful force in society, but far too often, they misuse the impunity they have. Humor is often a powerful method of discussing the things that people don't want to discuss. In a normal setting, issues like race and gender are taboo - one must not speak of them. However, through the mode of satire, these issues become acceptable to discuss. Take for example the first issue that was mentioned: race. If one was to watch almost any comedian of a race that isn't Caucasian, they all seem to have a similar type of joke, and that is making fun of white people. To them, they have been discriminated against for long periods of time and this gives them the right to retaliate back in a very tame way. In addition, people seem to be more receptive to discussing such serious issues when they are in an environment that they are less likely to be judged for holding opinions. That, right there, is the crux of the issue. We live in an environment where discussing controversial issues like this is against the norm. Because of this, society finds it hard to define what's considered appropriate in comedy, or in other words, what's "crossing the line". There's a well known example of a comedian taking a joke too far: Tracy Morgan, during a show made a joke stating that he would "stab his son" if he found out he's gay. This obviously was something that he would not do, and was satirizing what members of society think of homosexuals.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. Humorists use this given impunity too far as they make jokes that are way pass the limit. Humorists tend to make jokes about these controversial topics, which in the end supports and even encourages the use of stereotypes in society.
DeleteIt’s extremely true that while comedians and humorists can aid society, they do have the ability to cross the line, wherever that may be. It’s interesting to see how different comedians use reversals of stereotypes in their humor, and if that even is a benefit to society.
DeleteSince humorists convey messages without directly attacking the audience, they bring awareness to different perspectives of an issue; however, humorists alone cannot create a change in society, as this requires an explicit seriousness.
ReplyDeleteAlain de Botton's argument that society grants humorists a special way to communicate otherwise dangerous messages is correct in the sense that society is more inclined to listen to when they are not put on blast. SNL sketches and stand-up humorists utilize comedy that is usually heavily satirized-with hyperbolic and ironic ideas. These elements show the audience how certain stereotypes are absurd, and they mock society's nature overall but not the audience personally. This allows the viewer to take a step back and analyze whether societal norms are truly beneficial. This is similar to what we did with the SNL Superbowl sketch about how women are viewed in society. Collectively as a class, we were able to analyze the tone and exaggerations to relate them to how women should not be treated.
However, outside of an English class and in the real world, people watching this sketch would only get the surface level message conveyed. They would watch the sketch, find it absurd, and move on without examining the implications enough to make a change in society. In actuality, they would forget about the sketch in total until it was mentioned to them again. For this reason, all messages that humorists convey require some level of seriousness to inspire change in society. Without the protests and campaigning for better rights by passionate women, society would not take women's rights precariously. Humorists do bring about awareness for change by gently allowing the audience to take a look at their point of view, but this needs to be supplemented with influential people actively speaking out against issues and garnering support for actual change to come about.
I agree that humorists are not enough to make a change in society since their credibility as comedians invalidates their power to actually make a change in the audience's views. I liked how you contrast what happens in an English class to what happens in the outside world.
DeleteI agree with your statement that such acts humorists pull are often not analyzed greatly by most audiences. I feel that most people now are getting their information on opinions from more direct sources, such as the news, and see comedy in a surface-level context.
DeleteWhile I do agree that comedians have a better ability to speak on certain situations then those who would approach it directly, I do not think that comedians have the impunity de Botton says they have especially in today’s day and age. Time and time again have comedians faced backlash for making comments on controversial topics. A prime example of this is Dave Chapelle. In a recent Netflix special, Chapelle gave his thoughts on multiple controversial things such as the use of certain slurs and equality between men and woman. These comments made by Chapelle ended in him facing extreme backlash. Critics gave his show bad ratings and internet users even attempted to “cancel” him. Another example of comedians facing repercussions of their words is Kevin Hart losing the opportunity to host the oscars due to homophobic jokes he used in the past. People on the internet dug up controversial tweets and comments Hart made in 2009/2010 which ended in the worst case scenario for him, having to step down as host of the Oscars which was something he called an opportunity of a lifetime. This shows that comedians can and have faced punishments for their actions, even if the comments were made almost 10 years ago. In my opinion, I do think comedians do have an advantage when it comes to speaking on more difficult topics but this does not mean they are immune. Comedians can be held accountable for their words and face the same controversy writers who may have approached the topic directly can face.
ReplyDeleteI like how you talked about the controversy around Hart. Hart has become a successful comedian and has very strong views about social issues. Comments he made 10 years ago are probably different than his views now, but I'm not sure if Hart's comments crossed the line and he should be still affected to this day, or people are overly sensitive and can't forgive.
DeleteIt is true that humorists do not actually have the mentioned impunity. While they may not exist for the purpose of causing change, they are able to convey a message in a way that other methods are unable to.
DeleteWhile many may argue that humorists have no prominent role in society today, Alan de Botton believes that humorists not only entertain people but are able “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly." He also holds the belief that humorists provide a very vital role in our community since they can say certain things that others choose not to.
ReplyDeleteMany comedians today use their skills to talk about certain subjects that are prominent to him/her. Stephen Colbert, an American writer, producer, actor, and television host, sometimes talks about many matters that relate to the politics of the United States government. Through his show, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, he engages the audience towards these many issues with lighthearted humor. By doing this he brings awareness towards many different problems and hopefully gets people to do a little research on their own about the topic. Another example of a famous humorist is John Oliver, also an American writer, producer, actor, and television host. Just like Stephen Colbert, Oliver also talks about many issues relating to the United States government through his show, Last Week Tonight. Here Oliver creates humor through the use of mocking and sometimes parody to get around his point. Though while Colbert and Oliver may use very harsh or vulgar language, nobody calls them out for it as if it were a politician or senator using their sort of style. With almost no repercussions they provide their opinions on ideas in a very fun and engaging way. Though while this can be abused to a certain extent by some, they still provide a vital role in our society.
In today’s society, humorists are able to talk about serious issues in a comedic way that entertains, but more importantly, brings the issue to discussion and can be solved. Without humorists, many of these topics would never be talked about because they are tough topics to bring up.
ReplyDeleteHumorists can bring up topics in their work, that would otherwise be inappropriate to talk about, because they make the serious issue funny and relatable to a majority of the audience. While, at first the humorist makes a joke out of the issue, they often have serious opinions about the topic. An example of this is the stand up comedian Kevin Hart. In his Netflix specials, Hart makes light of serious issues. He introduces them very bluntly and expands on the topic while poking fun at the issue. Some people may get offended, but when he talks further about the issue, you can see how he is just as serious about the issue as most other people. He just made a joke about it to make it easier to bring it up as a discussion point. At the end of the special, the audience is entertained, but a majority of them are more moved by his message and the discussion that was brought up by his comedy, which has a more lasting effect than the jokes itself. While, some people may have gotten offended, the issue being- now- appropriate for discussion, and the serious message delivered through the comedy is, overall, more important. Humorists play a vital role in society, in that, they act as a catalyst for discussion of serious issues that, otherwise, would’ve been left untouched.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI completely agree with you, I think many people wouldn't want to listen if the issues were brought up in discussion, but humor acts as a means for a solution. Sometimes humor can be seen as disrespectful, but either way it brings attention to the issue.
DeleteI agree with you. Randomly bringing up a serious topic can create awkwardness between the people involved, so humor is a way to avoid or break the awkwardness.
DeleteDespite the ability to engage in more topics with impunity, offensive statements by comedians are overlooked as casual and funny. Racist and ill-mannered statements are accepted as "jokes" not flaws of someone's character. However, if similar jokes were to be given by peers, they would not be considered as jokes. Because of the nature expected of comedians, many of their-sometimes not so- hidden statements are overlooked despite their offensive stance. Many matters are saterized unacceptably because the majority of society is accustomed to brushing away insults. Comedians who make jokes based on sexuality or gener or race are often able to get away with derogatory jokes because of the nature of their profession. However, because of the wide range of their audience, the message that you are allowed to be rude and insulting to others is spread. Steve Harvey, once such comedian, was caught in a situation where he had made a joke that stated women didn't want to date Asian men. This was given on his talk show, where Harvey is given a wide platform that reaches a large audience. Despite this large influence Harvey is able to give, the comedian role was abused and spread a message of racism instead of humor. Yet, his writers and Harvey himself believed the joke was acceptable to give on a nation-wide show, the belief possibly caused by society's familiarity with overlooking comedians' slander. Yes, the role of a comedian allows more topics to be talked about without repurcussions; however, this also spreads the message that it is acceptable to humiliate others and not consider serious issues with significance.
ReplyDeleteAlain de Botton claims that the chief aim of humorists is not merely to entertain but “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.”
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is correct that as a society we allow humor to be portrayed in such a way that wouldn’t have been able to be stated indirectly, but I believe one can go too far, and offending others in the process, even if that is not their intent. There is a time and place for humorists such as political cartoons, which were a driving force in moving public opinion during important times such as World War II. Before Dr. Suess was making books for children he made WWII political cartoons, mostly Anti-Germany ones. It allowed citizens to see what was going on in the country at the time but could also negatively affect those who had family and/or friends who were affected. In our generation, we tend make fun of serious situations, either because we are not directly affected, or as a way of coping. As a teenager in 2020, I can attest that I have said a few times that I was “depressed” even when I just a little sad, and maybe laughed at a few WWIII memes on Twitter. However, I believe as a society we do not truly think of those involved and how their whole lives have changed over something that many individuals were just laughing over. The Coronavirus has been an issue in 2020 and many people have been using the virus as an excuse to deliberately be racist towards those of Asian descent. Thousands of people have been infected and hundreds have died, but sure, let’s all make racist jokes about Asians. Gold Coast surgeon Rhea Liang had reported that one of her patients jokingly refused to shake her hand because of coronavirus. This is an example when jokes went too far and are hurting others. Just because an individual made a joke doesn’t excuse how hurtful it could be to someone else.
I really like how you tied in the part about Dr. Seuss - I had no idea the man behind Cat in the Hat was a part of that! I agree that some jokes, especially racist ones concerning the Coronavirus, are brought too far, and I believe that that's truly the difference between a positive humorist and a negative humorist. I feel like positive humorists try to make good out of their jokes, whereas negative humorists (such as racist "Coronavirus" jokers) do so for their own benefit.
DeleteThis is really good! I agree that over-exaggerating comedic effect of society strips its issues of their importance. I like how you tied recent events into your evidence.
DeleteHumorists role in society allows them to highlight controversial topics, however, most humorists will use the topic as just another way to get the audience to laugh. The main objective of comedians is to create humor. Comedians think of what is funny rather than what is the message they are trying to get across. People see comedians as people that make others laugh, not people who are asking for a call to action or to be taught about an issue. Kevin Hart is a good example of how a comedian will talk about a dangerous topic and not turn it into a lecture about the topic. Hart talks about he was pulled over once for doing nothing wrong but was able to get away scot free because the cops recognized him. When discussing the story he does not talk about how much injustice there is in the justice system, he just describes his experience and twists it in a way that makes it funny for his audience. On one hand Hart could have used this opportunity speak about how African Americans are unfairly treated in America compared to their Caucasian counter parts. But on the other hand, if he did talk about the injustices it would ruin the humor of the story because talking about social issues is not entertaining to the audience. Humorists are vital to discussing hard to talk about topics through the use of humor and entertainment. But getting a message across is only possible if the audience is willing to have takeaways too.
ReplyDeletei completely agree with you. Humorists in our society today fail to display important messages to their audiences in order to improve society. Instead, humorists and comedians like Kevin Hart are only using their humor to entertain their audience, which in comparison, could actually make society even more corrupt.
DeleteIt is true that the intention of a humorist is different than that of one who attempts to cause change, but while they may not exist for the purpose of causing change, they are able to convey a message in a way that other methods are unable to.
DeleteHumorists are not the only vital functions in a society; however, they are the most effective since they shed light on important topics while providing a source of entertainment, capturing the attention of the large audiences. Think of it like this: people are more likely to want to go to a more entertaining event rather than an informational one. Comedians use this to their advantage and cleverly implement the same amount of awareness one would get had they gone to the informational event instead. For instance, many minorities who are comedians use humor to indirectly illustrate how many stereotypes affect them in a light-hearted manner, whereas a more direct statement on such situations would come off as more overwhelming. Furthermore, humor gives comedians the opportunity to voice their opinions on sensitive topics that most serious events wouldn't be able to since it could trigger various, negative emotional responses. With the use of humor, these negative emotions are subsided since the main emotion is a positive, happy one. However, one may object saying that humorists can actually turn a serious topic into an irrelevant joke. This is not necessarily true since professional humorists know how to balance humor and seriousness. This is different than the aspiring comedian that is still trying to figure out what to say and what not to say. Comedians are able to shed just the right amount of light on various topics without making it too bright or too dark; this is why they are very essential in society as well as the most effective.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you! I feel like some humorists do an amazing job at balancing these two aspects, but some humorists might severely understate the severity of a problem, which leads to controversy. Nonetheless, I think that this balance is subjective, and nobody will ever be completely satisfied with how a humorist carries themselves.
DeleteI definitely agree that humorists sometimes may cross the line, but the best humorists are able to critique without being too offensive. "Fake news" present in news doesn't necessarily appear too much in comedy because it can just be presented as a joke.
DeleteIn a world that has become extremely politically correct, humorists are the only people truly capable of tackling these divisive subjects. Even these humorists must be careful however, because if their true opinion becomes too apparent, the media backlash can be enough to put them out of business. Rather than coming to a consensus, society has adopted "cancel culture" as a way to bury people under hate for what is often no more than a misunderstanding. For example, Scarlett Johansson was victim of media backlash when she made the comment that she should be allowed to play "any person, or any tree, or any animal". After later clarification, she said that her quote was taken out of context and was not meant to appropriate anyone. Though she made the correction, the damage to her reputation was irreversible. Society has begun to shift, becoming OK with potentially ending someone's career, all from the comfort of behind a screen. To try and avoid this fate, humorists disguise their opinion under the appearance of a joke. de Botton is correct, especially as discussion becomes more and more restricted. In general, there is something fundamentally wrong in any system that so severely punishes such a mild misstep, and our society is coming dangerously close to the line. Respect for others is one thing, but political correctness is moving into the extreme, creating a sort of shared opinion that no one is allowed to diverge from. Humorists become ever more important as a means for communicating, and unless something changes radically, will continue to be a primary means of discussion in years to come.
ReplyDeleteHumorists serve instrumental roles in society by serving as a medium through which uncomfortable societal problems are broadcasted; however, the audience is what makes these humorists important.
ReplyDeleteFrom Horace and his Satires to Trevor Noah and his The Daily Show, humorists have been an instrumental part of our Twisted World for millennia. We’ve grown to love these iconoclastic icons for the entertainment and knowledge with which they provide us. Political change is all one big baking show, with these humorists serving as the crucial baking ovens and the audiences acting as ingredients.
Ovens cannot make baked goods on their own. Big-name ovens, like the French Stephen Colbert 3000 or the South-African Trevor Noah model, can continue to exist in a bare kitchen forever. However, without ingredients, these ovens will never be able to create a sweet and delectable baked good. Thus, arguably, these ovens are important, but it is the ingredients that make them important.
Ovens, obviously, still serve important roles. Aided by new kitchens, like the hi-tech social media test kitchen, millions of ingredients can be easily exposed to these ovens thanks to the nifty share feature. Ovens are unafraid to get uncomfortable, taking in the sometimes scalding and painful electricity. Rather than exposing the raw ingredients to this crude electricity, they produce a summery, almost sauna-like 375° environment in which ingredients can mingle and push their own boundaries. While all on one baking sheet, these ingredients are then able to combine to create the final product of change, with the help of ovens, of course.
Thus, recipes for the different types of changes baked goods essentially boil down to two interdependent parts: the oven and the ingredients. The oven filters jarring electricity into a controlled environment that makes ingredients a little – but not too – uncomfortable. Now, once the bread of change is done baking and cooling, everyone can reap the rewards, even those who were perhaps against even exposing themselves to the oven. Delicious!
I really like how you used the oven and the ingredients in baking for comparison with the audience and the humorists, I can clearly see the connection and the importance of the audience when humorists give their speech or comics.
DeleteThe role of humorists can be essential to humanity yet in today's society, humorists tend to utilize their humor in order to hurt more than help. Humorists express hidden messages and agendas within their work in order to point out the flaws of our society. By doing this, humorists are able to use their skills of writing, acting, or talking in order to imply an important message subtly that will hopefully lead to improvement in society. However, in our society today, that is not the case. Humorists today, such as comedians, cartoonists, television hosts, and satirical writers, are not using their humor to their best ability, which would include revealing ways for society to improve. Instead, humorists are using their skills for the sole purpose of entertaining, which ultimately leads to offending their audiences. Our society is propelling and promoting the humorists to continue their use of these offensive jokes because we view them as “funny” and we laugh. However with these “funny” jokes revolving around controversial topics, our society is left becoming even more corrupt than it was before. Therefore, if a humorist is not benefiting our society, then why does their title still permit them a safeguard that leaves them free from punishment? Due to this protection, humorists are able to go past the limit of what is considered appropriate and acceptable. Yet society does not acknowledge this because we are so used to these offensive jokes and the stereotypes in society. If humorists were to alter their ways and utilize their abilities for the better, then our society would not be nearly as wicked as it is.
ReplyDeleteThroughout society, humorists have been consistently responsible for using satire and comedic effect to call attention to its flaws and injustices; however, in doing so, they also serve to ease the consciences of responsible parties’ disregard for seriousness.
ReplyDeleteFamous satirical comedians, such as Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, offer prime examples of how humor can be yielded as both a sword and a shield, attacking the holes in society’s logic while also protecting its yielder from repercussions. Colbert and Stewart, who both have their own politically-based shows, use their platforms to assess potential presidential candidates, forms of government, and more. This way, they call out important political figures and policies in an obvious way that shows the audience its imperfection. Additionally, famous comedy platforms such as SNL do the same for various other issues; when watching these skits, you can find audience members nodding their heads in agreement or laughing at the pure absurdity of the situations presented to them. Here, it is clear to see how comedy is the perfect method of holding up a mirror to American society.
However, the use of humor has the potential to backfire, in that its proclivity to make its audience laugh also reduces its relevance. The increased use of comedy makes a situation more light-hearted, stripping it of its importance and thereby easing the consciences of listeners. After all, if it is something that can be laughed off within a ten-minute video period, it cannot possibly be that important. In this sense, humorists act as muffled bearers of bad news; they indirectly help to diminish the significance of an issue and allow society to hold the perception that their misdeeds harmless.
I like how you wrote that humor can be yielded as both a sword and a shield. I agree with this because when used the right way, humor can highlight an important issue that is considered taboo for us to talk about. However, sometimes the seriousness of an issue is detached when humor is added rendering us to laugh it off and to think that it's not that big of a deal. Also, if the act is too humorous, society simply laughs at it without realizing how the act is satirizing a behavior society takes part in.
DeleteIn today’s society, the blunt use of sensitive topics does cause humorists to play a vital role in society; they allow for controversial subjects to be discussed in a way that eases the harshness of delivery. Many comedians — whether in stand up or in shows like SNL — base their routines and skits off of “dark humor”, or self/group deprecation. Dark humor is defined as “a comic style that makes light of subject matter that is generally considered taboo, particularly subjects that are normally considered serious or painful to discuss”. Social issues are some of the main topics that comedians base their sets around, but for a beneficial purpose. By addressing societal flaws in a comedial way, some edge is taking off the situation, and they are able to be conveyed to the audience in a satiric and lighthearted manner. The use of comedy as a vehicle to address societal flaws breaks barriers and can be a way to challenge prejudices and the issues discussed. Since comedians are “just saying jokes”, political correctness is often thrown out the window, and true beliefs take stage instead. With such blunt perspectives, audiences are able to laugh about an issue, but are also able to see the highlighted issue within society, which can cause internal and external changes as a result. Additionally, many comedians use a plethora of irony intended to emphasize the illogical rationale of why society partakes in such prejudicial, discriminatory, or politically incorrect actions. Comedians play such an essential role in society as they aren't afraid to find humor in topics that some of society dares not to acknowledge. SNL very commonly does skits and sketches that comment on very fresh topics, often about politics and race. Very recently SNL did a small sketch on the corona virus and black history month. SNL found the societal and political issues in regard to those topics, and humorously commented on them. They did so in a slightly offensive way, but also in a way that brought humor to the issue rather than harm. Overall they served as a beneficial aspect of society by using their humor and irony to call out society on the flaws they found with the topics that were discussed.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think attitude of presentation of certain controversial things affects how people perceive it and because so much of satire is humorous it presents large issues in a funny way, making people more open to it
DeleteDue to the fact that humorists “convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly” and are able to shed light on society’s flaws, humorists serve a vital function in society. However, humorists alone are not enough to incite change.
ReplyDeleteHumorists often utilize humor to understate the intensity of societal issues such as race and gender discrimination. Even though these media are powerful, they are often overlooked and viewed as simply comical entertainment. In other words, the seriousness of the social issue is often detached when brought into a humorous light. For example, in the SNL act, “Black Jeopardy” that we viewed first semester, racial differences were satirized. All the questions asked on “Black Jeopardy” seemed to be only answerable by the two African American contestants. The creation of a new Jeopardy signifies the sentiment of isolation that many African Americans feel. They often feel disconnected from mainstream society due to their differences in culture, history, style and language. In addition, all the questions asked on “Black Jeopardy” exposed stereotypes applied to African Americans. The SNL act even included a third contestant, T’Challa, who was from Africa and kept saying answers that none of the other contestants or the host could relate to. T’Challa represented an outsider who was indifferent to a different culture. He wasn’t able to relate to or understand the other contestant’s views and thoughts. Though this act was crafted to be humorous to highlight racial stereotypes, it could’ve been easily overlooked for simply a comical act. When I first viewed the SNL act, I didn’t realize that the act was meant to satirize an impending flaw in society.
Also, since humorists often understate issues in their media, it can create an illusion that the problem isn’t that major after all. In addition, humorists’ media can also be viewed as offensive and disrespectful by some people because of how humor is used to speak the unspeakable and make it easier to talk about. Because many issues are too sensitive to be brought to light by humorists and the media created by satirists are often overlooked for simply being funny, humorists alone cannot instigate change in society.
I like how you used the SNL example from class to develop your argument. I also completely agree with the idea that because humorist understate issues in media, it makes the problem seem less serious. You analysis on this made me think about how understating a serious problem and exaggerating a serious problem are both negative effects of applying humor to serious issues.
DeleteI love this analysis of de Botton's quote. I definitely agree that many humorists don't know where to draw the line and often make media that is often viewed as overly offensive or direspectful but I think the only way to understand some of the most serious issues is to mock it- even if it is hard to digest its bluntness. I love your example of Black Jeopardy as that is a perfect example of the portrayal of humor in the media for serious controverial issues. Overall, great analysis!
DeleteAlain de Botton made a controversial claim that comedians and humorists use comedy to entertain, and “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” De Botton holds some truth within his claim that comedians deliver messages that could be frowned upon in normal conversation in a way that makes them easier to discuss. However, with that responsibility, it is very possible that humorists can take such conversations too far and become offensive. With an idea that the fact they are “just jokes” is able to pardon the disrespectful comments made by said comedians, the overall underlying message can get overlooked because of a hurt audience. For example, we see many instances in our society where jokes are made about elections or threats where an audience sits back and cringes and thinks that maybe the SNL writers should have left that one out of the skit, while another audience may think that it was funny and be right in their line of humor. The problem with de Botton’s claim is that where a joke with an important message goes too far is dependent on who the audience is, and whether or not the idea is communicated well enough. Looking deeper into a direct example, comedian Bo Burham created a comedic song called, From God’s Perspective, included in one of his shows. Written in a light-hearted manner, the song is told from God’s point of view and seems to degrade religion in a way that some may see as offensive. He overall asks the audience why they need to use religion as an excuse to be a good person, when they could just have good morals on their own and not use God as a beacon to make their decisions for them. While having a good message to some, others could be offended when he asks why his people would abstain from pork because God doesn’t care. To some, Burnham definitely crossed the line while others may not really care. De Botton’s claim is quite relative, while true that comedians convey messages that cannot normally be talked about, they can also cross the line and be seen in poor taste.
ReplyDeleteI like how you discussed how Botton’s claim was partly correct except for the impunity part because different audiences react differently to jokes
DeleteHumorists allow themselves the ability to display unique opinions in the form of humor in their messaging to their audiences, but it does not have a significant effect on society aside from occasionally stirring up discussion. Humor has always been communicated through humor, from political cartoons showing opposition in a satirical way to comedy shows revealing errors that are present in society, but such effective uses are limited due to the rise of internet media. Before the internet, shows such as SNL and late-night talk shows were much more effective in bringing taboo subjects in fruition, but the high accessibility of the internet and the rise of videos have been strangling television as a whole. This has resulted in some of these shows having to cater toward a specific view in order to retain ratings instead of having creative freedom. This is most shown in late-night shows, as many of them have similar political views, while those that stick to not talking about politics so heavily have been suffering in ratings. The internet has also allowed people to have more freedoms in creating their own forms of political messaging, as it lead to an overall decrease in the presence of the magazine and other forms of media humorists usually thrive in. These niches are now being filled in by the internet with individuals now being able to supply their own opinions with humor without the need of a humorist. The internet, while decreasing the influence of humorists overall, have also in some ways increased the influence of other humorists. Many are making the move into the internet with their humor, bringing unorthodox messages to a wider audience. The interconnectedness of the internet have also made it easier for humorist’s work to stir up discussion, with many such acts of humor being hit with pieces analyzing it for it’s messages and it’s benefits to society. Overall, humorists have fallen to the wayside, as anyone can now fill in the role of bringing uncommon views via the internet.
ReplyDeleteEssential in society, humorists today not only entertain their audience, but also give light to “impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” Embedded in our lives, humor is made use in situations varying from casual to formal, such as making friendships, presenting a speech, or even in more extensive situations such as a presidential election. In the cases of more serious situations, humor is utilized as a way of bringing important information about something that can be offensive otherwise. It is a way of connecting the intended message to the people who find the topic too sensitive or to the people who prefer a more optimistic approach to the situation. Although these approaches can be derogatory and offensive to some, the majority of humorists do know what is considered “acceptable” in society. Take the viral social media app TikTok, for example, where a good portion of posts on this app are humor-filled jokes that are offensive to some groups such as race or age. As the people on this app are not professional cartoonists or stand-up comics, the audience finds these jokes as racists and offensive, which is an appropriate judgement as the regular users on TikTok are people whose profession isn’t a comedian or humorist. On the other hand, humorists, whose profession is to give the audience a laugh about these situations, can target their audience for the intended laughter, while also conveying their message about a certain topic through this humor. I agree with Botton’s claim that humorists convey a vital role in today’s society, a place where humor should be acceptable especially with the growing dark situations in the world today.
ReplyDeleteOur class ironometer, irony is one word fixed under a broad definition, as a class, we broke down irony into five levels; parody, sarcasm, satire, epithet, and sardonic. Similar to irony, humorists are also divided and classified by extent. In my opinion, the humoristometer would go; social media uploaders, hosts of television programs, stand-up comedians, cartoonists, and satirical writers. One thing that they would all agree on sharing is their end goal to entertain. They wouldn’t cause an uproar or break in the status quo without trying to engage their audience. If a humorist stated their own opinion, withholding the humor, the average person might argue that their opinion is no better than their own. I stand by my position of believing that it is a far fetched statement to say “the chief aim of humorists is not merely to entertain.” Of course they strive to entertain us, because how else would they gain such a powerful platform? I have AP Government second hour which starts at 8:16, I’d be lying to myself if I didn’t think the subject of the class is boring at times. Some days, Mr. Werenka shows us Stephen Colbert’s “Better Know a District.” It's a recurring segment on The Colbert Report offering a humorous examination of a different United States Congress district and in each segment it includes an interview with that district's member of Congress. We students are shown this, not only because it’s hilarious and entertaining but it reveals underlying messages to teach us governmental issues. Not only does Stephen Colbert inform society but he gets to change it because of his gain of popularity. There’s no way that man would be famous with a talk show about politics if it wasn’t funny. It’s sad that society can’t sometimes be gotten through without humor, but it is mainly the truth. Despite disagreeing that humorists do entertain us, I definitely agree that they have an important role in society. Doing research Colbert testified against congress about farm labour. He wouldn’t have the ability of doing so without the help of his grown fame as a comedian. He serves as a figure that my second hour and congress listens to and is clearly vital to society. De Botton’s, Status Anxiety, does not grasp the idea that humorists entertain society, yet he achieves the thought they are crucial as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you split up humorists into five levels like we did with irony in class. I also liked how you talked about real examples from things you’ve seen personally.
DeleteI think that the author is correct in saying that humorists say things that others would not otherwise. In the majority of cases with especially dark humor (or humor that otherwise pushes the line) the only thing that protects the comedian from scrutiny is the medium that humor is presented in. And sometimes saying "its a joke" isn't even enough in some cases. Taking for example SNL. The majority of their humor consists of satire, imitating political or cultural figures. Their imitation breaks through to a demographic of the US that otherwise wouldn't watch the news and can understand what is going on through the satire that is portrayed (although in some instances you can still cross the line like Kathy Griffin who was fired from CNN). The margin that is extended to comedians are much wider in terms of what they can say opposed to a normal news host as presentation can make the difference from humor to litterall. Another example is the show Family Guy which can convey messages while saying whatever they want because of the audience that is viewing the show and the medium in which the show is conveyed.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree, humorists are protected due to the fact they don't actually say anything, rather the true meaning of their words is assembled in the receivers mind or the receiver is simply encouraged to consider (themselves) another view or argument. Saying things that are controversial usually leads to harsh reactions from others, but when they find the meaning out themselves (through humor) they don't react the same way
DeleteI don't think humor is meant to necessarily solve problems, but rather to raise awareness of problems. By creating funny memes, people spread awareness to others which can indirectly lead to a solution.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are situations where humor is misused / overused and while I also believe that some situations shouldn't be joked about, I think that jokes can be easily offensive as they are directly targeting the situation while humorists create a way of giving light to a situation using humor rather than mocking the situation.
ReplyDeleteDue to their ability to use humor to make their audience infer themselves and therefore better understand hidden messages (typically controversial), Satirists play a key role in society by exposing the weak links in their society, which then usually lead to reform. While this skill does have potential deficits, it is imperative not to overlook its profound impact to encouraging reform. For example, Mark Twain’s ‘Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ was a satire in its time of writing due to its portrayal of black people, namely that of slaves, in a good light - henceforth, helping change readers views on societal norms and leading to the reformation of America. Albeit, satire can be hard to notice and could harm more than do good if interpreted literally. For example, in George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’, Orwell says “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” which is a satirical statement attacking politics and slavery, but it is difficult to interpert and easily overlooked to mean nothing at all. Sometimes ordinary people use satire in their daily lives, in simple forms of irony such as sarcasm or in exaggerated statements like hyperbole, Which can lead to satire with no ‘deeper meaning’ other than an exaggeration of whatever need be… Leading to a flaw in the satirists role in society - meaningless satire. Meaningless satire is satire that is (obviously) meaningless due to the lack of a hidden message. This is a critical flaw in the satirists role because all it does is insight exaggerated reactions and cause panic. Overall, the satirists role is important in society but when not attacking a flaw in society they only complicate and exaggerate events.
ReplyDeleteAs an avid viewer of Saturday Night Live, I have seen many funny parodies and skits that have addressed a plethora of topics from politics, equality, alien encounters, and mock political debates. Throughout the 45 seasons of SNL, they have successfully addressed many important and influential issues at the time through the use of humor, irony, and parody. By using these humorous skits, SNL masters the use of comedy to deliver the casts message without the backlash that a regular politician or activist would receive from making these claims.
ReplyDeleteSNL has made parodies out of American government, highlighting the absurd nature of some of the considered bills and laws. In the SNL video, “Welcome Video” the cast shows an edit of a customs video right after Donald Trump was elected into office. During the video, a customs agent uses voice overs and effects to create humorous edits to the custom guidelines since the Obama administration. The video is an obvious parody of what American customs would do in result of the travel ban being passed, yet, by exaggerating the ban through the use of humor, SNL successfully explains the conflict that opposing people have with the ban.
This SNL sketch explains Botton's position on humorists in society. While some conservatives disliked their video, the backlash that SNL received for making a statement on Customs and Border Control was minimal compared to the backlash that some democrats in the Federal government received. Botton believed that humor used to address political policy is important to reduce conflict between each other.
Humorists, such as many Saturday Night Live skit writers, are often pegged as inappropriate or offensive, while in reality, offensive humor may convey messages that are “dangerous” to “directly state”. Although controversial, it is acceptable for humor to cross the invisible line separating friendly jokes from flat out disrespect. In many respects, offensive humor is used as a call to action for the public eye to pay attention to something unfortunate happening around them. Let’s face it. If there’s not a lick of controversy surrounding an issue, it usually doesn’t get much support or recognition, as we saw with the Chinese labor camp crisis that is being faced by Muslim citizens. If a prominent public entity such as a celebrity or political figure made an offsetting joke about it, the media would blow up with support and awareness for the issue, but as not many people have spoken on it, it is not recognized. Alain de Botton is correct in his argument that humor is a necessary tool- even when it goes too far. But I believe that with humor, there is not really a way to go too far (unless the statement is unbelievably dark or malicious). Of course, many people may be upset, like many viewers with Pete Davidson and his unnecessarily dark comments, but the upset eventually goes away- and the memories of the controversy do not.
ReplyDeleteHumorists convey underlying messages in their jokes as a way to bring certain conflicts to light. However, while humorists do bring these global issues to light, the use of their humor can often deter their audience’s attention away from the severity of the problem. People tend to cope with humor, most times disguising their true emotions with jokes so that they can try to ride it off as unimportant and nothing to truly worry about to the person they are speaking to. Oftentimes, the person they are talking to will respond in this same tone of humor. So as long as they can keep up with sharing their feelings and opinions, without really sharing their feelings and opinions, the conversation remains more light. The awkwardness of a conversation can come in when people are head strong and outwardly obvious with their opinions, therefore something all humorists avoid, because who would wanna watch something so uncomfortably direct as entertainment? This butterfly effect of keeping the message underlying in a joke, causes the problem to be underlying in society. Therefore, these humorists aren’t really bringing problems to light because the use of humor is distracting away from the point. For example, on SNL there are Trump impersonators that try and convey a possibly important flaw in the presidency or government, but the use of the Trump voice is often distracting. When we find something funny, it’s usually more lighthearted, therefore when people watch these impersonations they’re not paying attention to what the person is saying and their deeper message, but more the quality of the impersonations. So as long as we disguise the flaws of society in humor, it will never truly unveil itself to the spotlight.
ReplyDeleteHumorists take the role in society of lightening up the mood of everyone around them while also conveying very important messages that people can’t normally say or talk about. Some people think that humorists only humor people, but there are many examples that contradict that. One example is Hasan Minhaj. Minhaj’s show, Patriot Act, is a “Peabody Award-winning comic [that] explores the modern cultural and political landscape with depth and sincerity.” He uses his comedic and sarcastic voice and humorous jokes to make his audience laugh and make them come out of their serious moods while he talks about many issues, from political to global issues, that the world faces. These issues are sometimes problems that are never talked about, such as race and religion. Making a decision to talk about them while incorporating humor will make his audience take the topic more seriously, not fall asleep, and pay attention more. However, humorists also humor their audience for entertainment performances. Some examples are cartoonists and talk-show hosts. We have talk-shows just for comedy, such as SNL, who include people that entertain people and make them laugh for a living. Cartoonists are people that write just for fun to make little kids laugh. Some funny comics are Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Dork Diaries, and Big Nate. Even though some people might think that humorists are just there to entertain people, there might be a hidden message that they are trying to project to the real world. All you have to do is try to decode it.
ReplyDeleteHey Shivani, awesome post! I love your example about Hasan Minhaj, it always surprises me how he is able to use his sense of humor to revolutionize the thinking of Millenials and Gen X citizens. He is able to discuss a plethora of topics from his hardships due to his race and religion to the newest political news. I think that he does an excellent job at bringing awareness to topics that need to be discussed and he also knows where to draw the line so as to not seem offensive. Also your other examples about comics and skits show how humor places a huge role in our lives and we are able to take away concrete life lessons or messages from these eloquent stories. Great job!
DeleteWhile humorists may be able to spread more effectively certain messages that are dangerous to state directly, they are, nevertheless, still dangerous. We have seen this in many oppressed communities and "closed-off" countries. The authors, artists, poets, vocalists, etc. of "unpatriotic" messages have been thrown into camps/prisons or killed. However, humorists are in some ways safer since they can remain anonymous, at least until being discovered. Even if not anonymous, humorists are in many ways more efficient. Many humorists leave their marks on paper and these can be mass-printed, copied, and easily-concealed in low volumes. We can see as an example of this in the group White Rose in Nazi Germany. While they were not humorists, they were still spread written messages. However, in this case of strict authority, even humorists such as television program hosts are no different than “normal” public speakers. De Botton’s statement needs to be developed into conditions for different levels of dangerous.
ReplyDeleteBut, remember that this applies to dangerous message, while on the other hand is the matter of conveying of messages impossible to state directly. These “impossible to state directly” messages are often inappropriate or controversial opinions. The humor employed by humorists often takes the edge of these controversial opinions, to convey the message in a more digestible fashion for the opposers or people on the fence. These messages could also be those related to politics. Look at the German comedian who satirically criticized the Turkish President while live on television. The German government acted as if this was a joke, covering for the comedian, while still indirectly showcasing their views. In conclusion, humorists are actually very important part of society.
Alain de Botton's claim that humorists serve a vital function in society because they are able to say things that other people maybe cannot say is definitely in effect all the time and true. Most people have heard of Jon Stewart, who hosted Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" in 1999. People like Jon Stewart used their popularity to bring about issues that maybe weren't really talked about as much as they should have. In Jon's case, he was one of the top political comedians in America, and he used this to his advantage. He was able to bring to talk issues he was passionate about, all the while being comical about them. For some people, political topics and/or debates can be found as boring. But humorists like Jon Stewart bring humor into these topics which bring in more listeners to the topics discussed. This is a big plus in society because many of these people may feel motivated to act upon a certain issue that was spoken about. In this way, Jon Stewart almost had a voice for the people that didn't know that they had a voice.
ReplyDeleteCartoonist humorists are most widely viewd and seen through the works of political cartoons. In reality, not many people can be completely outspoken with the way that the country is run and the way things are going. Poitical cartoonists help with these issues with the works of their drawings. Take the political cartoon pictured here. It's basically showing how the United States is a mess, hence a "driverless car" becuase the country essentially has no good president in the eyes of this cartoonist and his/her supporters. These humorous effects help bring about citizens' opinions into reality and help to give them a voice, just like how Jon Stewert has done.
In conclusoin, Alain de Botton's claim regarding humorists is correct in regarding society and is fully backed up with modern examples. Regular people aren't only given a voice through politics, but also pressing issues such as immigration, racism, a certain food, gun control, etc.
In the darkest days, people look to one another for companionship and love to get through it. Often times, people resort to humor to find the light at the end of the darkest tunnels. Even in my own life, I have found that I use humor to downplay stressful or upsetting times. As de Botton so eloquently put it we can, “convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” He is trying to show how some things are so difficult to discuss so it is best to leave it to the humorists. I have found that I easily get stressed due to the numerous things that pile up in my life such as academics and extra-curricular so I make it a point to maintain humor in my life. Whether it’s studying with friends and making jokes while doing so or taking breaks to do fun things, I make sure to keep the studying fun so that I don’t burn out. The quote states by de Botton really resonated with me because it really reminded me how much I rely on jokes and humor to help me avoid stress. Another reason why I think humor is important is that it helps the public to adjust to serious or uncomfortable situations. In terms of social issues, many serious issues such as attacks or acts of discrimination are often difficult to discuss until it is satirized or until humor is used to dull the drastic effects it may have on a person. Overall, humor is an amazing tool that can be harnessed by all people to help them feel about their school or social life and help them take life one step at a time just as I have.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement on how humor covers up a lot of our stress and can hide our feelings. I feel that people often are "sarcastic" to cover up how they truly feel (and not be so direct).
DeleteHumorists play a much larger role than simply to entertain; humorists provide underlying messages behind taboo topics. From satires to parodies, humorists provide an entry for the public to understand societal issues in a lighthearted manner.
ReplyDeleteWhile journalists display information concretely and allow for much debate, humorists portray information more abstractly and subconsciously to allow for open interpretation. However, since humorists play this vital role in using wit to expose truths, it is often difficult to convey messages with "impunity," as topics discussed hold social stigma. Being able to keep satirical humor from crossing the line or receiving too much backlash is a true talent of humorists. An example of contemporary humor utilizing irony and satire to affect viewpoints and teach a lesson is Saturday Night Live. Often on SNL are commercial parodies, where the commercial is promoting a product that solves societal problems in a witty manner. These products are heavily exaggerated in order to produce the correct reactions from the audience. The hyperboles allow the audience to laugh and be entertained because of how unrealistic yet necessary the products are. This paradox of unrealistic yet necessary is the reasoning behind SNL's commercial parodies; it explains that the social issue is illogical, but yet such a prevalent problem. With humorists reaching a subconscious level of thinking, hidden behind the laughter are the feelings viewers maintain about these topics. While satirical entertainment may not change everyone's opinions, it allows people to be wary of the issue and their subsequent actions.
I love how you show how you show how each different humorists and how they display/portray different information.
Delete(Originally published Mar 1 "Overused and Ineffective?")
ReplyDeleteAt any given moment, society is faced with countless problems. Many of these problems may be ugly and tough to take on directly, so people will often avoid doing so. This is where humorists come in - by shedding a new light on societal issues, humorists can potentially raise awareness and motivate more people to take action on said issue, although it is unclear how much they actually speed up societal progress.
It's no secret that most people are lazy. Until one becomes bothered enough to act on an issue, one will likely let it slide - why deal with the thorny issue if it's not really harming your present quality of life? Government and society as a whole often act this way also. Yet this procrastination rarely results in any good - as we see when we don't study for an exam until the last day and get punished for it (and as we might unfortunately see with a certain public health issue in the near future and certain climate issues perhaps a few decades later, unless more action is taken).
Humorists, however, can make us take a different approach. They add a sense of humor and lightness into the aforementioned thorny issues, which may (theoretically) encourage people to take them on. Talking politics these days can be quite depressing, but watching SNL and other shows' parodies of Trump isn't. Similarly, if my post here last week had been an all-out rant about how fake the high school grind for college applications is, I think I would've beat myself up in anger (about the process) and depression (about how I'm stuck in it) before I was halfway done writing. Humor can make a difficult issue more palatable, which increases the general population's awareness and the number of people who could (potentially) be willing to take it on.
Yet how often does humor actually cause a noticeable change in people's actions? Unfortunately, not very often. How many people have watched a political parody and then decided to vote the incumbent president out of office as a result? Probably very few. What am I going to change in my ways after writing that satire last week? Nothing. How many people have been motivated to take action on climate change thanks to some meme they saw? Certainly not very many. The first issue is that humor often goes only to strengthen one's stance. A point made from the opposite perspective will often bounce right off and get ignored. The second is that humor is almost overused these days, with all the parodies and memes and whatnot floating around on the Internet, that it's almost become ineffective. Sure, it's good for a laugh. Sure, I know the problem exists. But no thanks, I still don't want to deal with it.
In the end, while the use of humor may help to raise a bit of awareness or pull a few people out of the undecided zone, it is ultimately not that effective in fostering societal progress. People, desensitized, laugh it off too easily. Then they go back to being lazy and don't do anything until real-world happenings make them bothered enough to.
I think I have never seen such blogs ever before that has complete things with all details which I want. So kindly update this ever for us. aide aux devoirs
ReplyDelete