Mark Wahlberg was furious about this skit. He said that we wanted to punch Adam Sandburg. And then when he calmed down he had this to say Now after a while he ended up on SNL spoofing his own angry reaction to the skit. To be honest I thought that was funnier than the original skit. So in a way I think Wahlberg actually helped the SNL crew on that one. And in fact he helped himself. Being a actor you're in the limelight. And people may impersonate for whatever reason. And that's what happens when you choose to be in the public eye. It's the same for politicians although I can see how they would be less amused than a actor. They have more to lose by slanderous comedy. But the Wahlberg skit just made fun of his accent. He's from Boston, comedy based on that accent is nothing new. So in my opinion it was a good thing that Wahlberg loosened up and spoofed himself, because he really had no reason to be so very upset in the first place. Here's Mark Wahlberg part 2:

Ethics on the road

Sorry this post is coming up late. I'm still in Milwaukee, celebrating birthdays, but I'm taking time out to post. One of the questions we talked about last class, is the idea of responsibility. This is such a loaded idea. In a way it is linked to the concept of context, because joking in a small private controlled group is one thing. It's kind of like manners. You're more controlled and cautious in public setting than if you're at home. Personally I belch at home all the time, but I would never do it in public, if I could help it. The same is true of jokes. I'm not big on racial jobs but if I partake, it's usually at home in a controlled group. I know what to expect and I know I won't offend people, and vice versa. I do think that like manners in a public context you do have a responsibility to behave well.

Justus brought up an interesting point in class, about how we deal with offensive humor. I don't think that the government should be censoring people. However as a community I think we have a responsibility to speak out about truly offensive things. When the humor is a hate-motivated public call, something should be said. My journalism professor husband is really big about Free Speech. When he teaches it, he always explains that although you are Free to say things you still have a responsibility for what you say. I feel that for ever point there is counter point, and when as a society we see something we don't agree with we have a responsibility to speak out. For instance the Suicide Awareness group that spoke out about "The Office" had every right to present their argument. Whether you agree with them or not is not the point. They have the right, or responsibility to speak out on behalf of that population. Neo-Nazi groups who use hate derived humor to call their supporters should be spoken against. Otherwise you are encouraging it in a way. That old phrase, "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem" is true. If you have convictions you should stand up for them. If you don't, then they aren't convictions. Healthy debate is a sign of a civilized society, apathy doesn't help anyone.

Bad Black Jokes.....

Our topic this week is the Ethics of Humor. And what is a more ethical mine field than racial jokes. In the right context I see nothing wrong with mild stereotypical jokes. However among the list of jokes we were to contextualize, this week, someone were full of hate and truly offensive. So I chose I less inflammatory joke because I feel I can say more about the humor in stereotypes rather than the humor of hatred.

What do black people and semen have in common?
-Only one in a million work.

Okay so why is this funny? My grandfather is a great lover of racial humor. Being a semi devout Catholic he might not laugh at this one, due to the sexual overtone. But he's shared more than a few "black" jokes at holidays. In fact my first experience with this kind of joke came from him. Why does he laugh? He was a third shift police officer working the Cabrini Green Projects in Chicago for years. In his experience there was truth to this kind of statement. Sure my father had a couple up-standing African American friends, but my Dad could be a trouble maker too. His friends weren't enough of an example for my grandfather. To him it was a superiority thing. He thought he knew what they were really like, because of what he saw day in and day out. This is an excuse, not a reason. Don't get me wrong, I'm not backing up his racism. But when my father was held up at gun point, it was an African American. Other than the regular drunk drivers, the majority of calls I dispatched, at a Police Department in Missouri, were African American offenders. There is some truth to the stereotype. On the flip side,some of my brother's white friends should be on the Springer Show, if it's even running anymore. There's all kind of trash, white and black, which is why I find that in the right context I can laugh at stereotypes.

I can also imagine this joke being told at one of the parties I routinely attended in high school. I need to clarify, these weren't high school parties. They were parties that high school girls were often invited too. I was dating an older brother of a friend, and he had a condo. He was friends with some of the lowest lowlife in the area. We drank with gang-bangers and ex-cons. One friend in particular was dating an ex-con who liked to play the rival gangs against each other. He had a slew of illegitimate kids and he was black. At the time it seemed his job was running from the cops. After we graduated he called this girl at her college dorm to ask her to come bail him out of jail. He would have laughed at this joke. He would have seen it as a badge of honor. He didn't sell drugs because he had no other way to make money. He loved the thrill, he loved laying around for days on end. Every time he successfully evaded the police, it was a notch on his bedpost. So here's an example of the demographic deriving joy form the slanderous humor.

Later in college I met a guy who would have laughed at this joke, because it wasn't about him. He was African American, came from a modest family, had scholarships but no ghetto friends. And he would have laughed and said something about "those" people. He enjoyed the sex-god stereotypes, but didn't let the others affect him, because he didn't see himself in the same category. It's similar to how I can laugh at the red-neck jokes, because they are about someone else. I'm not saying that this guy represents all African Americans. I'm sure that many would take offense at this joke. I'm simply using examples from my life to show how some people would react. If I had grown up in the projects and pulled myself out I would take offense at this. And I'm sure that there are people like my college friend, who grew up better off but would still take offense, simply because others group by color. Which to me is the most ignorant of all. Maybe because I've seen and known all kinds of African American people I have a different view. And that's the slice I wanted to share.

I wonder what my brother-in-law's reaction would be. He tends to laugh at black jokes and then shake his head and say something like: That's cold man. Maybe he laughs to diffuse the tension of being the only black guy in our family. But I have seen him joke with his fiends and he acts the same way. He's a sweetheart. He's stable and puts up with more than his fair share with my sister. And he always has a smile. So where does he fall in this spectrum? Maybe that's the problem it is a spectrum and unless you really know someone you have to careful about your jokes. The article we read about Bob Knight brings this to light. There was private joking, but the public perception of it was off. No one say the picture of Knight teasing the white player. and no one say "footage" from the practice, only the one photo. And isolated it probably looked pretty bad, but in it's full context it was funny to all concerned. And that's my point here. Some racial jokes are full of venom and simply spiteful. But some poke fun at stereotypes, and are all in jest at the time. But you need to be part of that time to be able to make that decision.

In Group Out Group Theory

"In group Out group" theory is a pretty simple thing. It's about the only thing I remember form my husband Dissertation, other than all the wine I drank while he complained over dinner. Basiclly we are social beings and as such we attach ourselves to groups. You never exist in just one group, but the groups that you belong to you dictate your reactions to other groups. And I think this applies to our topics this week. The idea of hate speech and group theories do go hand in hand. Chris Rock is hillarious, and he makes a lot of racial jokes. But if a white guy did that same routine, would it be funny or would it be hate speech?

The article we read about "Blue Collar Comedy" goes a bit to prove this idea of groups. The comics are able with their background to create a sense of authenticity. Again if a well educated man from the north did those routines it would loose something. Not just that but I'm fairly sure people would take offense. Folksy charm is only charming when it's authentic, otherwise it's parody and mean. This in group idea only seems important in regards of the presenter. Any audience can enjoy a routine that connect with, as long as it's sincere and authentic. Meaning that's it's deemed funny and not hateful. And the line for this was drawn back in grade school. I can call my little brother a goofus, but you better not. My little sister is mine to abuse not your's. It's really the same thing. If they are in my group I can raze them, but if you do, it may be hostile. Better tread lightly.

It's also an interesting side note that the facts of the events are irrelevant. In fact sometimes things are funnier when you know they aren't true. When it's blown up just enough to distance anyone from going through it. The Blue collar guys are funny whether they ever lived in trailers or not, because they play it up so you believe that maybe or maybe not. You don't feel that you're laughing at them so much as with them. So many things are easeir to deal with if there is an element of fiction to them. Horror flicks are good fun, but war documentaries make my stomach turn. Same thing for comedy.

What's Color Got To Do With It

For this post we read the article "Just Joking: Is Racist Humour a Form of Vilification?" I don't want to defend racist jokes, really I don't. But I was struck by the fact that one of the examples: What do you call a group of black people chained to a rock - a good start." is used in many contexts. I've always heard it said with Lawyers in place of black people. But if it's hate speech against black people, is it still hate speech against lawyers? Personally I don't find humor in skin color or ethnicity. So I wouldn't laugh at the example. But I have laughed at the lawyer version. Does that mean I'm vilifying lawyers? I don't think we should kill them but they do seem to make life very tedious.

In a similar vein, I'm polish, 100%. And I think I've heard every Polish joke. But I don't feel threatened by them. Should I? Are people who tell Polish jokes also planning violence against Poles? This may sound ridiculous, especially since there isn't the kind violent history for Poles as for Blacks. But it seems to me that anything "Black" has become the equivalent saying Voldemort out loud. If you're white, you're assumed to have no ethnicity and all the privilege. But that's not how I grew up. I grew up with dumb Pollock jokes and difficult relatives. But somehow that's all funny and acceptable. Personally I don't find any of it funny but I do feel a little annoyed at the insinuation that one joke is a form of hate speech while another set is just laughable. If you tell the joke with malicious intent then it's hateful, and if it's told off hand it's just that. I've heard my fair share of degrading jokes about women and Poles, but I've never felt threatened, just annoyed. Which for a joke is a bad effect.

Who Watches Stand Up Anymore?

In the article we read for this post I was struck by the age of the piece. The article talked about comedians liek Andrew Dice Clay and Roseanne. I think that some of the stereotypes the article pointed out are a little outdated. Clay isn't nearly as popular and humor that slams women is certainly not the norm anymore. I always chalked of the uneven amount of female stand-ups to the general male centered society we live in. I think of it in the same manner as male chefs. In a home, cooking was always percieved as women's work but in a professional setting women are scare. I don't agree but with this agenda but after a while a person becomes used to the "norm." And this is how I assumed stand up was. I do agree that "feamle" humor if such a thing exists is less abrassive as soemone liek Andrew Dice Clay. But then plenty of people think Margaret Choo is abrassive as well.

Persoanlly I likle intellectual comedians like Eddie Izzard. Whether feamle or male, I enjoy stand up that engages my intellect as well as my funny bone.

Gender issues and laughter

The article "Science of Laughter" states that biologically speaking women are the laughers and men are the comedians in order to attract women. Now while I admit that I like a man who makes me laugh, I'm not sure that I agree. I can think of plenty of times when the men in my life laugh without my joining in. But then I think this begs the question of "guy humor" vrs. "girl humor." I have often annoyed my girlfriends by agreeing with my guy friends. But when it comes to humor I am very resistant to what I call "guy humor" or what Kevin Smith calls "dick and fart jokes." I've seen all of his movies, but I never laugh at the easy jokes. I prefer the more intelligent insights and special references. Now my husband and brother laugh so hard at the easy stuff that they've been known to cry. Now this baffles me, because my husband is a professor and I tend to think that he should have a finer humor palate. But alas this is not the case so I tend to agree that there is a difference in what men and women find humorous.

Mother Nature, it's just not right...

Does humor help or hinder persuasion? Hmmmmmmm, This is a difficult question because there is so much that goes into persuasion. For example in the article we read for this week, they briefly touch on gender differences. and depending on the context these can may a big difference in the way humor is perceived. For example Tampax has a new line of commercials involving Mother Nature, a woman clad in a red suit, delivering monthly "gifts." The first time I saw I one of these I was horrified. There used to be an unwritten rule about using red in a feminine hygiene commercial. My husband on the other hand laughed out loud and then immediately apologized to me. He said: I guess that isn't really funny? So sure there was humor, but it didn't persuade me to buy the product.

When it comes to ads I think the needs of the audience make a huge difference in regards to the persuasion factor. I love the Etrade commercial with the stock trading baby. They may me laugh every time, but I don't trade stocks online. I have a money guy for that, because I know that I don't have the time to study the stock market. It has nothing to do with ads. That being said I do think that humor can help persuade by increasing likability. When Bill Clinton was running for office he appealed to the young audience by getting on MTV and being funny. He proved himself to be a "real guy." And that piqued a lot of interest that ultimately turned in to votes. So does humor help persuade? I think if it's used properly it can help, but I hope that people are smart enough to look at the whole picture first, not just the quick laugh.

Why are Bad things funny?

Originally I had a trailer clip to entice you, dear readers, but alas I am experiencing technical difficulties. So my question of the day, or rather the rest of the semester, is: Why is dark comedy so funny? In particular I want to look at the movie Very Bad Things.

Dark humor is full of all the things that should be terrifying to us as a society, yet we laugh at it. When my husband and I saw this movie he was rolling over the manner of the stripper/prostitute's death. We both laughed through the entire movie. It's mock serious tone did nothing to put us in a serious mood. The reprehensible acts that build through the story were hilarious. But if the same story had been presented on the nightly news would we have laughed? If these events had happened to people we know we would be crying. So why were we laughing so hard at this movie that we started to cry? This will be my research focus this semester. In addition I plan to compare the audience of this movie in 1998 to a much older audience, say the 50's. Would the Golden Era of movies have a place for this type of humor? Would it have earned that title, or been put in a horror bin? I do find a lot of early horror films funny.... But is that the movie or modern society? Where does the fine line of humor fall in such work and why? Tune in again for more on my research.

Physiology or Philosophy?

Although I enjoyed our excerpt from Herbert Spencer, I would assume a lot of my classmates did not. It reads like a physiology lecture, and being a science geek, this was right up my alley. Spencer describes extra neural excitement and the way it needs to find a path out of the body. He uses the example of exercise and I think it's a great one. When you're nervous or excited, you can't sit still. You often can't sleep either. But if you exercise, say run or play basketball. You work out that extra energy and you can finally focus. Personally I experience this a lot. When I don't exercise regularly I don't sleep. It's as simple as that. Spencer puts laughter in the same category. It's simply a physical channel for excess neural stimulation.

So why don't we laugh all the time? He goes on to explain that laughter only occurs in a descending order. If the overstimulating event is not "inferior" to the preceding stimuli, laughter won't be the channel that the excess takes. I think of this as a necessary let down. If a stimulus creates more tension and escalates the excess you don't laugh. For instance if someone is ill and in the hospital, you may have an excess of stimulation. If something silly happens you might laugh and release it. Perhaps your loved one starts to come around and makes a joke. But if your loved one dies. That next step is a further escalating step and doesn't elicit a laugh but a different release, probably tears.

I'm not sure how this ties in with Freud but Spencer makes a lot of sense to me.

Ugh! Freud!

I need to start this by saying that I am not a fan of Freud. And this week's selection did nothing to warm me to him. For starters his comic examples of a death row inmate making a joke, on his way to the gallows, about a great way to start the week, was tasteless. Needless to say I didn't see the humor in it.

Basically what he's saying in this excerpt is that humor comes from "the ego's victorious assertion of its own invulnerability." He explains this as a "fine" distinction. He seems to be saying that it's a wonderful thing that our minds can trick us into believing that we are better than others and some what bullet-proof. Maybe it's just my own bias (probably) but I think he's insufferable. This idea seems to me to be a rehashing of superiority theory. See also Aristotle, Plato and Hobbes. Trying to think of an example for this I came up with the same ideas from those posts. I'm sure I'm probably wrong here, so feel free to comment and correct me.

And now on to Kierkegaard The piece I read for this post cracked me up because the bulk of the piece is a foot note. That's not the point, but as an English major, I thought that had to be pointed out as just too funny. What Kierkegaard is saying in this piece is that basically any situation can be funny depending on the perception of the outcome. If you can see a way out the situation you can see the humor in it, but if you are wallowing without a light at the end of the tunnel, the situation becomes tragic. Hence the theater masks.

To be honest it sound so much like finding the humor in a really bad day, after the fact. I have had such horrible strings of events that I feel like crying when I'm in the middle of it. But often when I get home, ready to complain, my husband will have made me dinner, or my kid uses the same dramatic tone to tell me how she killed her ladybug friend accidentally. And when I start to tell the story of my bad day, it becomes a mini comedy routine, because I know that when I get home at the end it's all okay. Suddenly the fact that despite my best efforts I got lunch down the front of my shirt, and the three attempts to get the printer to work right are straight out of a sitcom. Perhaps that's also just how I deal with things, but I think it fits the distinction that Kierkegaard is making. The humor comes from a certainty that somehow things will work out.

No, Not That One

Although I agree with his name, Arthur Shopenhauer, described the idea of the Ludicrous without such a colorful example. Okay seriously, Shopenhauer builds on Incongruity theory by picking up where Kant left off. He leave the physical aspects of laughter alone and describes the difference between wit and ludicrous. In a nut shell the idea is that wit is more of an art form. To use wit is to be in control of the source of the humor. To intentionally set an expected ending to a story, for example. Where as the ludicrous man misses the mark unknowingly.

I have a perfect example of this from my own life. My daughter is in 4K this year and comes home with the craziest stories. The other day she told me about a boy at school who was chewing on his sandals. She said that the teachers told him to stop, but he wasn't really listening. I responded: Oh gross! You don't do that right. And she said: Of course not, I wasn't wearing sandals. I almost had to pull the car over, I was laughing so hard. So I quickly redirected that chewing on shoes is gross and will make you sick... But her wit is not yet fine, she stuck to her literally meaning. In this case my daughter was ludicrous, although I did laugh at her. So I guess I'll be sure to keep her in her Converse at school.

Better Than a Run

This post is based around the work of Immanuel Kant. He talks about humor from the point of incongruity. However in the excerpt I read he doesn't talk about the mental confusion of incongruity, he talks about the physical aspects of such humor and it reminds me of exercise. He explains the sudden moment of incongruity as a point where a physical reaction occurs. He actually describes a pulling sensation in the stomach that activates the diaprham and lungs. He compares it to being tickled. This, he says, adds to our well-being which is a state of gratification. His larger argument in this piece is about Gratification. But he's referring to a more primal sense of gratification, not a personal feeling of a job well done, which he calls self-esteem.

So I while reading this I wrote in the margin: like exercise, feel better after a good laugh. And I really think that's what he's getting at. A person starts out listening to another in an everyday, serious way, and then the punch line startles us into a physical reaction, which is good for us. And according to Kant that's where the value lies. I can see this I've laughed so hard with my mother, that we were crying and sore. It was a real workout, and we both felt so good afterwards. I've even slept better after a night of good laughing, just as I do after a good workout. So maybe that's my new goal. Forget the elliptical machine, I'll tune into a few sitcoms and consider myself good to go.

What a sudden idea

Today's reading selections came form Hobbes. And as you may expect he speaks to the idea of humor based in superiority. He is very much like our Greeks, in that respect, very proper. But something that literally jumped out at me as I read was his frequent use of the word sudden. In his dissection of comedy he continually described as a sudden act or a sudden realization. Even when explaining that a person can laugh at himself after the fact, he called it a sudden realization of the humor that is no past. This is something that brought up in the earlier readings. In fact the others talked about planned, humor for a purpose. So although Hobbes's intent my not have been to speak about the unexpected nature of humor, this is a point that really stood out for me.

This idea also fits into the superiority angle very well. Sudden comic situations such as someone tripping, occur as a something out of the ordianary and relying on a person (the tripee?) who has fallen (literally) out of confining standards of everyday life. And the person laughing is doing so from a point of higher social standards. So it all fits, and it in this situation is the sudden-ness that really stands out.

Some Strong Opinions

Aristotle has some strong feelings about comedy as it pertains to everyday life. First off in Poetics, he describes the comedy mask as deformed and ugly. He goes on to say in Nicomachean Ethics, that a person's lot in life can be seen within his view of comedy. Aristotle uses the archetypes of a buffoon and a boor to mark the extremes. He looks unfavorably on each end of the spectrum claiming that neither have much to add to society. He further states that the well breed man will not take offense at comedy but also will not create it.

It's interesting to me that he makes that distinction. I read a novel this summer which partly revolved around the fact that comedians were minor celebrities and had a respectable following. So it would seem that our modern society could find fault with this argument. Although I would argue that being slightly reserved will get a person further in his/her career. On a personal level, I work with two different types of coworkers. First there are the older women, who have grown or nearly grown children and have held professional positions before. They make occasional jokes and we have a productive and enjoyable shift. However some of the younger crowd, have a nonchalant attitude and are very fond of practical jokes. Consequently there is a good deal of clean up work done by the next shift and some hard feelings. So I would have to agree with Aristotle that a delichttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ope-1Zb5t-kate balance must be struck. But I'm not ready to give up my fan-girl crush on Eddie Izzard any time soon.

Plato, the Somber

Who doesn't enjoy a good laugh? Well Plato for one. In his book Republic he speaks against humor. He warns that laughter comes from a malicious place. He is speaking primarily of the theater and comedies. He said that if you laugh at another person, generally at their misfortune, it is a slight. You are putting yourself in a superior position to this person and that is wrong. Wow! what would Plato think of the more inane physical comedies that fill out modern theaters? I would hope that halfway through a Jim Carrey film he would simply agree that man is clumsy and let loose, but his work suggests otherwise.

Introductions

Hello! and Welcome to my new blog. If you find through Indiana Eponine, be forewarned that this is a different kind of blog. The basis of this blog is look at the study of Rhetoric and delve into how it intersects with Humor. In this post I will be giving a short overview of basic Rhetorical background. And in subsuquent posts I will be discussing some therories of Humor and laughter, and how they work in within the dynamic of a rhetorical situation. This endeavor is being spurred on by a class, but who knows this may be a topic I continue to work with in the new year.

So to start everyone knows what Humor is. But what is a rhetorical situation? What is Rhetoric to begin with? To put it simply Rhetoric is the art of Persuasion. It's the ability to skillfully use words to bring about a certain response, Wordsmithing, if you will. Aristotle broke down rhetoric into three main components: The character of the speaker, the appeal to the audience's emotions, and the message. Sounds simple enough, right? Who hasn't choosen words carefully around parents or children? Who hasn't been swayed by powerfull political speaches? But how about this Rhetorical Situation? There seems to be a bit of controversy over that definition. For class we read two apposing essays to try to decipher the idea. Llyod F. Bitzer suggests that the rhetorical situation is innate in the event. The situation calls out to be spoken about. However Richard E. Vatz argues that people create Rhetorical Situations through their personal choices to speak on an event. An event that occurs in a foreign country can be labeled a catastrophe in our press or the story can be buried. It all depends on the people involved.

Being an English major, I like Vatz's arguemnt. It basically boils down to filters. Who filters, in this case, the news? Who's moral compass is tweaked by the event? In the case of literature, different people get different things from the same work. So who's to say that the same filters don't affect the rest of life. Politics is a prime example of this. Everyone has an agenda and for the most part they are varied across the political scene.

So there's a real quick intro to some of the basics. Next Post: Plato!