Hacker News Reader

Comment by sudhirj | Hacker News Reader

The basic rule of comedy, or making jokes, which is amateur comedy, is that you always punch up. It’s funny when you say “ha! you’re fired!” to your boss, but never when you say it to someone you can actually fire.

Same reason why parents (should) never joke about punishment or disciplinary action with their kids - when you have power and authority you also have a responsibility not to belittle it. People will take your power over them only as seriously as you take your responsibility towards them.

View on HN

I know you're specifying amateur comedy, but it's not so clear what's up or down. A lot of people think Dave Chappelle punches down, but is he really?[1]

"Comedy is subjective, and it's offensive, it really is. And people are making these imaginary rules, like, 'Comedy can punch up, but it can't punch down.' No, comedy punches down too sometimes, sorry. You don't make up the rules for my business without consulting a few of us. This is just people deciding these random rules about my business, and they're not even the funny people at their office, probably." - Jerry Seinfeld

"Who decides what’s punching up and punching down? I have a routine about these comedians writing articles in the Guardian, trying to set the rules of comedy, insisting that we should never punch down. And I say sometimes you’ve got to punch down." - Ricky Gervais

Also, it's important to understand what the actual target of the joke is. Chris Rock sums it up as, "Talk about what they do, not what they are"[2]. I think that's a useful rule of thumb.

1. https://arcdigital.media/dave-chappelle-punches-up-55dfe906e...

2. https://youtu.be/OKY6BGcx37k?t=2533

This gets interesting, especially with Dave Chapelle, but professional comedians like Dave and Seinfeld etc. have one very specific attribute that allows them to punch up, sideways and even down – everyone always knows they're joking (sometimes even when they're not). And comedians have no power of their own, so they can speak truth to power as much as they want.

The problem is only when someone with power punches down, unlike a professional comedian (who has no power over the group s/he's punching at). That's fine, we can all laugh at ourselves.

There's also a problem with punching down when you're not a professional comedian, because now nobody knows you're joking. If you try this, you'll sound racist/classist/sexist/elitist.

The rules about comedy don't apply to professional comedians, because you know if they break them they're still trying to funny. Just like if a beginner plays a bad note on a piano, it's a novice mistake, but if a master does it it's dissonance that shakes your soul.

> The rules about comedy don't apply to professional comedians, because you know if they break them they're still trying to funny.

I don't think this is true in the modern age. Countless non-established or up and coming comedians and adjacents have gotten fired for one-off remarks in old material or social media posts. If there's a constantly evolving list (which no one person on Earth is completely aware of in its entirety because of constant evolution) of "problematic" topics that will get you fired, all you will end up with is bad comedy.

More than 30 years after its release, Eddie Murphy was basically forced to apologize for Raw; undisputed one of the greatest standup specials by one of the greatest comedians of all-time. People were calling for a boycott of Netflix because of Chappelle and Seinfeld gets shit for his remarks all the time. If these were up-and-coming comedians, they would not have a career.

Who has been fired for 'one off remarks'? Older work getting re-evaluated, viewed from a different angle, etc, is more or less how culture works. Murphy or Seinfeld don't seem to be any worse for the wear at all.

> Who has been fired for 'one off remarks'?

Google "comedians fired social media" or "comedians fired old material". If not one-off remarks then a tiny percentage of overall material.

> Older work getting re-evaluated, viewed from a different angle, etc, is more or less how culture works.

I have no problem with anyone taking a nuanced look through an entire piece while also considering the time and place when it was published. What I do have a problem with is cherry-picking through an hour plus of material and branding an entire work "problematic" or worse for a handful of jokes that were mainstream funny at the time and clearly jokes; the whole point of the profession. Most of this is amplified by social media and its ability to share short, out of context clips of anything but unfortunately there are real consequences that arise from that.

> Murphy or Seinfeld don't seem to be any worse for the wear at all.

Both of those guys are some of the greatest to ever do it. They also both have a lot of money. They're well-insulated from the consequences that others may face for similar actions; whether they be too big to blacklist or not suffering the loss of income that may devastate others.

So people aren't getting fired for 'one off remarks'. It's hard to really evaluate your claim that seemingly normal changes in cultural and social norms are some dreadful modern scourge if you can't really produce evidence it actually exists and is harming anyone. "I don't like some stuff I see on Twitter" is a problem more or less everyone experiences, it's probably not some important social ill.

> The rules about comedy don't apply to professional comedians, because you know if they break them they're still trying to funny.

This was the original notion that I was disagreeing with. If you can't think of a single comedian fired for social media posts or previous material then you really aren't educated on the topic that you are arguing about. Also, complete exaggerations like:

> dreadful modern scourge

> not some important social ill

are not conducive to conversation. I never once claimed that changes in societal norms are negative so please don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that there is a complete lack of nuance or context with many of the modern forms of evaluation and nuance and context are kinda important for appreciating any artform. Some of that evaluation takes place on social media and ends up having outsized real-life effects.

It's odd you are accusing me of 'complete exaggerations' - the evidence you offered for your position was that 'countless' people have been fired for 'one off remarks'. That would absolutely be a scourge, if it were true. But it isn't, and you've now said so yourself, if I'm reading you right.

James Gunn, director of "Guardians of the Galaxy" is the first person to come to mind for me. He's not a stand-up comedian per say, but humor was undoubtedly part of his job and he got fired for some very poor jokes he made on twitter a decade prior.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/business/media/james-gunn...

He got fired and rehired. Wasn't a comedian. Wasn't for 'one off remarks'. And the whole thing was a deliberate, targeted troll campaign. It's hardly an example of countless people being fired for one off remarks.

'Fired' doesn't make much sense for stand up. Most comedians won't play (or aren't invited to) college campuses anymore. Two decades ago every comedian would tour campuses. Something has changed drastically.

This is very anecdotal, but I've noticed that teenagers will often somewhat ape some of the remarks or attitudes from comedians they enjoy. I certainly did so as a teenager, and had peers that did the same.

While a professional comedian doesn't have any power de jure like you mention, I always wonder if their words carry weight in a more implicit way. Society has ultimately put them on a stage in front of an audience, after all. That's not to say that the comedian is responsible for other people's behaviour or thinking, but I can't help but think that the remarks of a comedian are less toothless than your idea might suggest. When someone suggests a comedian look punch up, I wonder if they're engaging with the implicit effect of comedy.

The thing about punching down is that, because of the power differential, you don't hear back when you've gone too far. You may even get the victim smiling and laughing along with you, for their own safety.

But people remember, and talk among themselves, and your name becomes known, and maybe one day there's a huge backlash. And the backlash looks disproportionate, but should really be considered in proportion to the decades of incidents it's in response to.

(You can see this happening in real time with statues of racists, especially in the UK)

Name one notable comedian who has made their career from solely "punching down" and not from being genuinely funny. This is a borderline non-existent problem that has its own self-filtering mechanism; no one is going to pay money to see a set of someone solely "punching down".

Interesting point. Chapelle can hardly punch anywhere, but down at this point with the amount of success he has had.

Ricky Gervais and Jerry Seinfeld are both well known for complaining that they can't make jokes like they used to anymore.

I think Ricky Gervais's last special had an extended bit about how Asian people sometimes mix up their L's and R's.

Seinfeld seemed flabbergasted that college students didn't think that "kids be texting and that's bad" was a good routine a couple years back.

They're just bad comedians relying on material that's decades out of date, and blaming their inability to remain relevant to the youth on "anti-PC" culture.

"Punching up" is a rather new guideline of comedy touted within specific groups and hardly an agreed upon "basic rule". While standards have changed over the years and deplatforming happens much faster now, unless you want to invalidate entire careers or widely renown material, "punching down" can and always will have the potential to be funny.

I noticed that. Who was that comic, who got Netflix special and made some sensitive jokes and the only complaint I heard was 'well, I guess some find it funny, but he really is punching down'.

I think I heard that about David Chappelle's Netflix special.

Yes, that's correct. In his case, specific quotes were selectively disclosed and context on his overall point (whether you agree with it or not) was completely lost in the process.

Most modern successful comedians are not known for one-liners. Selectively quoting through text/audio/video effectively reduces all comedians' material to one-liners and completely eliminates all the nuance and context of the original performance piece.

It applies to pretty much any situation where you have some decision making power that affects someone else, and the only reason something does or doesn't happen is because you decide it too.

The joke isn't funny if the only reason its a joke is because you haven't done it yet.

I've always disagreed with that rule, but apparently for opposite reasons from most people. I think that punching up and punching down are both bad, as a rule of thumb. They're great comedy in certain situations, but as a rule of thumb, I think they're to be avoided.

As for when they're appropriate, it's about A) the potential damage that can come from it being misconstrued or B) the potential damage that can come from you doing part of it wrong. It's more common for there to be potential harm when "punching" down than up (hence the rule of thumb), but there are situations where it's fine or bad in either direction. But a lot of those situations are only in a context of real trust, for example with friends you don't have power over who know you well already, or a comedy club where it's understood that it's all for laughs.

Don't know if I agree with "never" punching down, but I wanted to share a poignant example of what punching down poorly looks like:

https://twitter.com/davejorgenson/status/1269288466493341696

Wayne Brady and Aisha Taylor handled this extremely well, but I'm glad he stood his ground and didn't smile and laugh along, despite the situational pressure to.

Not even sure that's an example of punching down. Highlighting the absurdity of 'fits the description' is punching the system, is it not?

As someone who gets paid to do standup comedy, this is not a basic rule of comedy.

I get that it's not appropriate to punch down (especially in the work place). It is always riskier to punch down with comedy but it is 100% not a rule of comedy not to punch down.

as a general rule, all punching in the workplace is frowned upon

A US President once gave a speech joking about assassinating the Jonas Brothers with a predator drone to protect his daughter from dating them.

https://abcnews.go.com/WN/president-obama-tells-joke-jonas-b...

(Not singling out that President, but the incident was shocking.)

....at the White House Correspondent's Association Dinner, which is known for bad jokes?

I don't think the issue is that it wasn't recognised as a joke. It was clearly a joke. It's more about what the topic of the joke was.

Think of holocaust jokes.

Yeah, not funny because Presidents can, and often do, kill people with drone strikes. It would have been funny if he pointed the joke at a hurricane or shook his fist at God while saying it.

If he wanted to make a dad joke he could have said he had a shotgun or would box them or challenge them to a duel or something. That implication of superiority with balance can be funny, like Mike Tyson joking that he was going to kick your ass if dated his kids. Enough of a flex, but the balance is maintained because if you train hard enough or knew enough kung fu maybe you could take him.

Joking about firing people and calling a drone strike on them are not funny if you can actually do it but they can't do it back to you.

It's shocking but not because it's punching down on the Jonas brothers. The part making people ill at ease is not Obama as a father talking about murdering famous boys trying to date his daughters.

The actually shocking part is that the president views drone stricks, which is to say extrajudicial murders in foreign countries, so casually he thinks it's appropriate to make jokes about them.

I'm pretty sure Obama's administration pioneered the double-tap, where a drone strike is followed up several minutes later by another one, which is intended to kill those who are providing aid to the fallen. This is considered to be a war crime. He caught flak contemporaneously for this issue, and not just by Fox News, et al.

I'm generally a strong Obama supporter, but this is one area that I feel like his actions were totally indefensible. I'm not surprised by his callous attitude on the subject.

> I'm pretty sure Obama's administration pioneered the double-tap

I am pretty sure it is not a new technique - it was famously featured in the 2010 children's book Mockingjay, and I am sure Suzanne Collins didn't make it up either.

Double-tap bombing are a staple of the asymmetric warfare arsenals of spec-ops forces/guerilla/terrorists since at least the second world war, probably much longer.

(Also, it is rather unlikely that Obama ordered the airforce to start double-tapping, or even that he knew ahead of the fact, given the amount of extrajudicial killing/assassination the US forces do every month...)

Considering who were/are them, I'd say even if it was bad joke, still was funny. As a father of a girl, I'd say same joke as well.

Even ignoring the drone strike part, that whole category of jokes needs to die. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMSAcZ90QI8

Reply on news.ycombinator.com