Hacker News Reader

Comment by barrysteve | Hacker News Reader

You shouldn't be disallowed from joking about anything. Clamping authority down onto jokes kills them before they've had a chance to fail.

The safety net of a failed joke is that it doesn't mean very much. Putting authoritative rules in place to prevent a failed joke makes it so much worse when a joke doesn't land, or accidently offends, because now it "shouldn't have been allowed in the first place" and the public senses a disruption in their own control over the world.

Just let jokes go people, they don't matter and that's the gorgeous, beautiful truth we can share together. The network effects of treating jokes like they have authority and governmental consequence is deeply unpleasant for everyone, except a few political groups which benefit.

View on HN

Who is making these rules about what jokes can be made, and by what mechanism are they enforced? I've never seen anything about that.

There are social consequences to making certain kind of jokes. Like there always have been? But which kinds of jokes and what sort and degree of consequences are changing.

You can have an issue with that and resist it, but the mechanics of this institution are not new. These unspoken rules about who can say what and what will happen if you transgress them are the invisible infrastructure of social connection and ultimately society. The rules are changing fast and by different players than is traditional, but the fact that there are rules and consequences for violating them is as old as us.

In the US, a long list of comedians have fought hard through the decades, first radio, then TV to be able to tell risky jokes, naughty jokes, anti-establishment jokes, uncouth jokes, etc. They all fought against the prudes and establishment culture back then.

Should they not have fought and won those victories? Should they have remained in vaudevillian repertoires only?

Etc is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Racist, homophobic, sexist, and transphobic jokes are really what we're here to talk about. Was it an intentional omission or an accident? Just curious.

Lenny Bruce, Redd Foxx, Richard Prior, etc. Comedians of old engaged in all of the above. I do not know a comedian that existed prior to 10 years ago that did not have some sort of sexist joke (Obviously Andy Clay takes the cake, I think), short of maybe some pretentious super wholesome "comedian" doing "wholesome jokes"

Let me summarize and repeat the argument to see if I'm getting it right. Because jokes were used to test boundaries in the past, there is no boundary that should not be tested today?

I'm not a comedian. I cannot tell a joke. I would bet most comedians 10, 5 years ago would have said definitely yes. They probably would still say so today -but given the coals they have to walk on, you may find some trepidation amongst some.

This is confusing. Is it that you agree with the comedian's logic or is it different from your own?

Techbros seething lmao, easier to just downvote the person who clearly doesn’t understand that freer muh speeeeech freeer the people. How dare there be consequences for any action, I just want to say anything and get away with it, like you know etc.

Yes. We should be able to joke about those things.

Your comment has an extremely sinister tone, I’m not sure if that was intended.

Sorry, but I don't take ******* people like you seriously, lol. Just joking, of course. Hope this illustrates the point :)

I think your joke is fine, I just don't understand it because you censored the punchline.

It literally illustrates my point? I don't like people making bad jokes about "people like" me, but in about 45 seconds I'll be over it.

Thats just the prude rules of current point in history. Each era has its own concept of ideological heresy.

Unfortunately using outrage to inform comedy doesn't discern between honest critique and genuine bigotry.

Are you saying that the old "prudes" (for example) are the new folks who would "cancel"?

The problem comes when liars have to perpetually maintain so many lies that they must persecute anyone courageous enough to speak the truth. It doesn't even matter if they're right, just that they can and do think for themselves, and have the spine to speak out despite the show of conformity. They attempt to dominate language to control everything else. That, and fear.. Laughter helps cure people of fear. They need people afraid, divided, and willing to give up essential liberty for the illusion of security.

Disobedience in intolerable.

Slavers are antithetical to truth, and vice versa.

SPEAK THE TRUTH.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com