Question about Truly Bad Jokes

[Julie]

I have a question regarding truly bad jokes (as in jokes that are in poor taste).

Why is it that some comedians/famous people can develop huge followings that aren't bothered by their racist/sexist/politically or religiously charged jokes or comments, but other famous folks get reamed for making similar jokes or off-color comments?

Disclaimer/Background: I don't think that racist, sexist, or any kind of "ist" behavior is appropriate or excusable. Hatred is not something that should be promoted. I do frequently find off-color/inappropriate jokes funny, but when I do, I wonder if I'm a horrible person for laughing at them. I also understand both sides of the comedic argument regarding whether or not telling these kinds of jokes desensitizes the public to the disgusting nature of the attitudes behind the jokes. I think free speech is important, and I believe that people aren't going to leave a comedy show and decide to be racist/sexist/whatever just because they heard a joke. I also believe that free speech should be tempered by good taste and common sense; people should be sensitive to what could be perceived as hurtful by their listeners.

However, the recent Paula Deen scandal that cost her her contracts with Food Network and other major companies came to mind after watching an episode of Tosh.0 last night. It really made me wonder whether or not the reaction by the public and corporations has been fair. Granted, Paula's identity has always been about wholesome Southern hospitality (with heavy doses of butter and cream), and Daniel Tosh has never been anything remotely close to wholesome...but it seems odd to me that she would burn for her jokes and comments (that were seemingly made with a great deal of naivety regarding how they could and would be received) when he makes money intentionally being offensive. Why is unintentional offensiveness a reason for public outcry when intentional offensiveness is rewarded with touring shows and television shows? I don't necessarily think that the things Paula Deen said are "okay" (I was just as shocked as everyone else when I heard about it all)...I just think that the public seems to have an odd double-standard about this, and I'm apparently as guilty as everyone else given my recent reactions to what I've seen on TV. It's just that I caught myself last night and then started questioning...

I figured the lot of you are pretty smart, so I wanted to see if any of you guys could weigh in on this and explain something that confuses the heck out of me.

[Dave]

It does seem like a double standard, certainly.

I suspect that part of it at least comes as a result of "contrast". When someone's schtick is deliberately coarse and outrageous (even to the point of blatently offensive) it's often interpreted as sardonic or sarcastic, in a way. In this context, specific bits of offensive language or idea don't stand out very much... and even when they do I think there's a (subconscious?) tendency to interpret them as "just part of the act, s/he doesn't really mean it". We know that the comedian we're about to see is going to be potty-mouthed, we're going to see him in part because we expect (and want!) to be shocked, and so his "shocking" language and slurs aren't "out of place" or even "real".

I suppose it's related to the concept of "exposing our dark side". There's a beneficial social role for those who deliberately "speak the unspeakable" as they help us collectively confront social taboos and conflicts in a safe way. Consider Archie Bunker as an example... or the court jester (allowed to satirize or mock the King and his ministers) or the Heyoka (Lakota sacred clowns).

In situation's like Dean's, this doesn't happen, because there's such a huge contrast between the person's wholesome, "nice", squeaky-clean public image, and whatever views are expressed or language is used "privately". I think this tends to lead to a sense of shock and even betrayal by the person's followers. The "sarcasm, part of the act" principle doesn't apply, and people experience a jolt of "Oh s***, this is what s/he really must think... s/he is not the person I thought!". In a sense, this causes the person in question to be seen/judged to be a hypocrite... "You tried to fool us with this image, but now we see who you really are!"

It's similar to what happens when a high-profile moralizing preacher, or a high-ranking church official is caught soliciting sexual favors. Actions which might be overlooked, winked at, or mildly tut-tutted in the case of an average citizen, carry a much higher social penalty for those who had previously condemned such behaviors in others... the public doesn't care for hypocrisy of this sort. Even wearing a squeaky-clean persona can be interpreted by other people as "moralizing", I think... and so there's a backlash when the armor cracks and the "boy scout" is demonstrated to have flaws just like the rest if us.

And, Americans seem to love "seeing the mighty take a fall", especially when it's a pratfall of their own making.

[Julie]

I think there's a lot of merit to what you've pointed out, and it certainly explains why there aren't very many angry mobs out to get shock-comedians. However, the point that still raises a question for me is this: There's a distinct difference between saying things "privately" because you hold a certain belief that you don't show in public and saying things "privately" (meaning when there aren't cameras rolling and a script to follow) that you don't necessarily even realize could be offensive. A lot of the things I've heard she said came across in much the same way as it would if a child said something not knowing it was offensive. Granted, Paula's a grown woman who's lived through some seriously racially charged times...so she should know better...but I know people who think that because they have friends who say these things and because they have friends who are of a particular race or creed that they can "join in" on the jokes that are inappropriate for them to say. It's not right behavior, but it's also not cause for being burned at the stake. It would be exceptionally different if we found out that in her private life, Paula truly hated African Americans and made comments that were intentionally derogatory. It just seems to me that she was unintentionally offensive and stupidly naive in thinking that she wasn't being offensive.

This whole thing definitely alters my opinion of Paula Deen...but I wouldn't boycott her cookware (not that I ever think spending stupid amounts of money for a pot just because it was endorsed by a celebrity is a good idea) nor would I send her hate mail over this. I can kind of get why companies are distancing themselves from her. They're afraid of damaging their "all-American" image or losing some of their consumer base because not terminating their contracts with Paula could be interpreted as "supporting her behavior." The problem is that she has some crazy die-hard fans...and they'll likely lose a large chunk of their consumer base anyhow.

I guess I'm just frustrated because Americans encourage bad behavior from some celebreties by watching shows like TMZ and Bad Girls Club or whatever else...but then when the "good" celebreties have an error in judgment or moment of anger/frustration and prove themselves to be just as flawed and disfunctional as the rest of us, we cry foul and create a wave of hysteria that results in the destruction of their identity and career (I may not agree with a word that Mel Gibson has said, but that man is a fantastic actor...how much work have we seen out of him since his image took a big hit?).

[Dave]

You're right on, Julie. It is a double standard (or triple, or ??) and it's not particularly rational/logical. It's pretty common, though, and not limited to just American culture.

I have a hunch that it comes in part from the fact that most people (world-wide) tend to put things (and other people) into fairly simple categories - good/bad, friend/stranger/enemy, and so forth. One such dualism that shows up a lot in many cultures is "pure/impure". Things (and other people) are seen as good/pure/proper, or not. The former is acceptable and laudable, the latter is not and is to be avoided or condemned.

The tricky thing about "pure" is that "impure" is often seen as something that's contaminating... associating with the impure will make you impure. And, the boundaries of what is considered "pure" can become very narrow. (The "Infection" episode of Babylon 5 explores this... a weapon system created to destroy all the enemies of a race on Ikara had been programmed to wipe out all but "pure Ikarans", and its programming was so stringent that it ended up destroying everyone on the planet. Nobody is entirely pure.)

As you said, Deen's sponsors are dropping her because they don't want their all-American image "contaminated". She is now seen as ritually impure and cannot be associated with (according to this way of looking at thing) without risk of taking on her "impurity". Failing to condemn her (by ending sponsorship relationships) would be seen as implicitly supporting her and her "impure" behavior.

In many cultures, some form of "ritual cleansing" would be called for, in order for her to put the issue behind her and "rejoin proper society". It might be a public confession and taking of responsibility for giving offense, or a retreat into contemplation and meditation for a time, or a ritual bath, or participation in a public or private spiritual ceremony.

The thing is, I suspect that those people who were truly disturbed by her actions are probably not the same people who would be watching (e.g.) Bad Girls Club... and the companies which had sponsored Deen likely aren't buying ads during Bad Girls Club. The "purity is important" folks aren't watching BGC much if at all. So, to some extent, you're seeing two very different sets of reactions played out in public, because it's two different groups of people doing the reacting.

[shadowinthelight]

I'm not sure I totally agree with the idea it is a double standard. It isn't so much about context as it is the context informs the intent. I do think racist jokes can be funny in a certain context because the comedy comes from highlighting the ridiculousness of such a way of thinking when you know the person telling the joke is not themselves promoting racism. When it happens with someone like Deen it really does appear to be an indication of how she truly feels. I don't know all the details but there are allegations that racially hostile attitudes are common in her restaurants.

[bmonk]

Another factor: the coarse shock-comedians are not seen as being of the oppressor group--often they themselves are in the minority group, and use of the forbidden words becomes a sort of badge of honor--we endured this, and did not lose our humor--while when Paula Deen uses that language, or even admits to using it, it comes across as someone who still doesn't get it, one of the oppressor class who is still stuck in 1930s attitudes, if not the 1830s.

[Atomic]

I think this (by way of Reddit) tends to sum things up nicely:

[Fairportfan]

Yeah, well, i despise Li'l Wayne and his ilk, too.

=================

Speaking of bad jokes:

Fellow was upset by what he read about the ozone layer.

So he tossed his aerosol deodorant and bought a stick.

He read the instructions: "Remove cap. Push up bottom".

Now he walks sort of funny ...

... but his farts smell wonderful!