| shavenferret said: 1. Should this boundary be a legal, or personal moral one? 2. Who would implement this? 3. And what if a historically marinated group is currently causing a lot of problems and needs to be made fun of? I didn't mention this in my last post but a big purpose of comedy is to help society deal with issues and help it figure out who is right or at fault. It does this by reflectively poking fun at a situation or making fun of an offending party. However, any kind of hard boundaries would destroy this, and hurt comedy's ability to give us a nuanced perspective on life. Just some thoughts, sir. You had some good points, but not sure if you thought broadly on all of that. |
1. Moral, of course.
2. The comedian.
3. It depends on how historical do you mean. 5 years ago or 500 years ago? It also helps if you parse your joke in that history.
| KLXVER said: 1. So what people are shit on by society in large? I think thats just opinions at this point. You might think one group is being shit on alot and another might think a different group is being shit on. And so comedians cant joke about anyone. 2. I mean who would be in charge of who comedians cant joke about? |
1. Data and statistics can delineate the shitters from the shittees. Socioeconomic factors of groups, crimes against groups, limitation of representation in society/government, etc... If you understand the difference between individual and group circumstances, It's not difficult to recognize how jokes can add insult to injury and should be refrained. Kicking those that are already down is the low hanging fruit of stand up.
2. See above about who implements the boundaries.
To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.
