| DarthMetalliCube said: But to me at least, the term "punching down" is a bad and misguided one for two main reasons. For one, it essentially implies violence or at least a slight, when comedy is meant to be harmless art/entertainment, or even a catharsis - often ironically towards those targeted. Many use comedy to cope. Second, that these so-called targets are considered "down" by way of being weaker, less-than, or hold less power is patronizing. Even if there may be a bit of truth to that in certain areas, I find it somewhat condescending if anything. |
There is some irony here with you applying a more literal definition of 'punching down' when discussing an art is that is literally filled with metaphor and allegory.
And yet you miss the actual literalism in that those groups that are down often are literally punched for being said group. By making fun of them, you are adding insult to injury.
As for patronizing? More irony. If Mike Tyson punched you in the face, he can't tell everyone else that it didn't hurt you. Only you can determine that. My point is that you don't get to determine if they aren't 'down' if you aren't them. That's a matter of statistical data and the collective sentiment of the group.
I believe The-Pi-Guy was accurately addressing a subtle difference in 'punching down' and merely having a group as a central focus of a bit. Joking at vs joking with. Making fun of vs making fun with. Does the joke or bit cast a negative light on the group or does it simply involve the group as a plot device?
That's the boundary. And while I agree it should be a self imposed boundary, I myself lend no respect or credibility to a comedian that internationally crosses that boundary for monetary and social gain. Only the weak punch down.
