"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 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 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...)

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.

Think of holocaust jokes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? It looks like you've done it repeatedly, and it's really not what this site is for. If you'd review the guidelines and take the intended spirit more to heart here, we'd be grateful.