The value of humor

[yguy]

Mickthinks, one of the most detestable posters I've ever had the displeasure to converse with, nevertheless brought up an interesting point when he recently questioned the value of humor. That, and freemonkey's account of what happened on Bill Maher's show where Steve Moore appeared with Maxine Waters and another liberal comedian, impelled me to post about it.

Moore was saying a few things about ACORN, and couldn't remember what the acronym stood for, so he asked Waters. This woman - who IMO is spiritual kin to Winnie Mandela, who is to "necklacing" what Vlad Dracula is to impalement - scolded him thus: "Well if you don't know you shouldn't be talkin' about it".

The audience of credulous left-leaning culls naturally went wild at this, but obviously not because it was particularly amusing of itself.

Now with that as a prelude of sorts, I think the question is prompted: why do we pay people to make us laugh?

And why do the most prominent comedians lean almost uniformly to the left?

[ChuckF]

That is kind of weird and I've wondered it myself. Most right-leaning comedians, like Dennis Miller, just aren't very funny.

ETA: Now, now. When handled properly, mickthinks is a delightful forum toy.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by yguy

And why do the most prominent comedians lean almost uniformly to the left?

Off the top of my head, because good comedy consists of pointing out the absurdities and inconsistencies in the world around us, and a worldview that tolerates and copes with perceived inconsistency is a hallmark of liberal thought maybe? I distinctly recall a study a few years back showing that self-identified liberals had an easier time dealing with uncertainty and incomplete models that self-identified conservatives.

The best example of rightwing humor that I can think of is South Park, which tends to lean libertarian-right, and they make their way by playing off hypocrisy, absurdities, etc., as well as anyone. Compare that to...what was it called? Half Hour something? The explicitly right wing version of The Daily Show. Their "humor" consisted almost entirely of nasty jabs at liberals, without an appreciation for absurdity. "OMG TEH LIBRULS ARE SO DUM!!!" over and over isn't funny. I wouldn't watch a show that had no jokes beyond "LULZ, GOP DROOLZ DEMS RULEZ!!!" TDS itself, on the other hand, is equally funny when they're taking shots at conservatives, liberals, whatever, because they focus on what's absurd about the political theater that pervades the country.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by yguy

Mickthinks, one of the most detestable posters I've ever had the displeasure to converse with, nevertheless brought up an interesting point when he recently questioned the value of humor. That, and freemonkey's account of what happened on Bill Maher's show where Steve Moore appeared with Maxine Waters and another liberal comedian, impelled me to post about it.

Moore was saying a few things about ACORN, and couldn't remember what the acronym stood for, so he asked Waters. This woman - who IMO is spiritual kin to Winnie Mandela, who is to "necklacing" what Vlad Dracula is to impalement - scolded him thus: "Well if you don't know you shouldn't be talkin' about it".

The audience of credulous left-leaning culls naturally went wild at this, but obviously not because it was particularly amusing of itself.

Now with that as a prelude of sorts, I think the question is prompted: why do we pay people to make us laugh?

I certainly wouldn't pay YOU to make me laugh, you have the sense of humour of a leek.

Originally Posted by yguy

And why do the most prominent comedians lean almost uniformly to the left?

Because that is the only part of the US media that is left to the.. eh.. left.

The rest of it is thoroughly in the hands of the right. The left is the court jester.

[Alex]

Leaning to the left: There are endless laughs to be had by poking fun at so-called "traditional" values - which are mocked, by progressive comedians, as coercive strategies of the powerful designed to enforce conformity and slavish obedience.

As a member of the Miserable Majority, I'm quite happy to pay comics who can tell good jokes.

[BDS]

There are several theories of humor. Freud thought laughter was the repressed id, bubbling up from its repressed state. In as much as conservatism represents “law and order”, it makes sense that the rebellion of the id would tend to be liberal.

Henri Bergson thought the essence of humor was “the mechanical encrusted in the human.” In other words, when a person is required to act mechanically, it’s funny – as when Charlie Chaplin walks like a wind-up toy, or when Poles are required by convention to behave as stupidly as possible. So Tina Fey is funny mimicking Sarah Palin because she eliminates Palin’s humanness and constructs a mechanical impression of her (political cartoons are funny for the same reason). Using this theory of humor, it’s easier to make fun of the rigid than the flexible.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by yguy

And why do the most prominent comedians lean almost uniformly to the left?

This last batch of conservatives has so screwed things up that I am no longer sure what it means to be "right" or "left". It looks to me to be more like a sporting event than anything having much to do with social issues. You root for your team simply because they are wearing the right colored jersey.

[Watser?]

Here's a good place to post John Cleese on who is the funniest Palin:


http://nl.

YouTube - John Cleese on Sarah Palin

&e

[erimir]

It seems to me that there were/are plenty of laughs to be had at the expense of the Communist regimes, largely for a lot of the same reasons that Adam and BDS gave.

However, I'm not sure that most of the funny jokes weren't coming from leftists and libertarians rather than full-on right-wingers.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BDS

So Tina Fey is funny mimicking Sarah Palin because she eliminates Palin’s humanness and constructs a mechanical impression of her...

I'd argue that the human-as-machine theory is a sub-theory of the humor-as-absurdity theory. Humans generally think of each other as individuals with free will, etc., so the idea that we are required to follow narrow scripts in ways that are obviously counterproductive is unexpected and absurd.

I was going to disagree with you, and point out that most of the humor in Fey's mimicry is that it literally is mimicry, in that Fey often simply repeats Palin's exact words, rather than present Palin as anything other than what she is, but then I realized that's the point. What does Fey's mimicry add to the equation, though? Why is it funnier for her to mimc Palin than for SNL simply yo play a tape of the Couric interviews? I think they key is that, while Palin presented herself as a talking-point spouting machine, Fey highlighted the inherent absurdity of the situation, essentially saying, here I am, a professional comedian, and I can't write better material than the VP candidate's actual responses to actual questions.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Alex

Leaning to the left: There are endless laughs to be had by poking fun at so-called "traditional" values - which are mocked, by progressive comedians, as coercive strategies of the powerful designed to enforce conformity and slavish obedience.

That does seem to put it rather succinctly.

As a member of the Miserable Majority, I'm quite happy to pay comics who can tell good jokes.

Yes, it can serve as a non-chemical alternative to something like alcohol.

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw in the New Yorker about a million years ago. Two stockbrokers see that the market has gone way up, and in jubilation they turn into the bar. Next day, the same two guys see the market take a dive, and in despondency they turn into - yep, you guessed it - the bar.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

That is kind of weird and I've wondered it myself. Most right-leaning comedians, like Dennis Miller, just aren't very funny.

I'm not sure who that is, but you'd never have heard of him if a sizable number of people didn't think he was funny.

[ChuckF]

That doesn't really make sense but ok.

[Kael]

I often find that when a comedian, or other comedic medium such as a show, gets political it loses some or all of its humor value. The problem, I think, is that they are too invested in the topic, too stark about it. They see only the absurdity of the 'other side' and not their own. Simpsons is less amusing (to me) when they get political. Another good example is the Doonesbury comic. What happens is they get so wrapped up in making their political commentary that they forget their original goal of humor. A common banter in my family goes like this: "How is Doonesbury this week?" "He forgot to make a joke again." It's a shame, really, since the strips where he remembers to make jokes are usually quite good, even when politics are still the topic.

Another good example Adam covered. The Daily Show is very amusing to me. The Colbert Report is not. I stopped watching it a few weeks after it started. The bias got in the way of the humor.

Humor and politics are a good mix, if you keep them in the right proportions. Too much politics, and the mix can quickly sour.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Kael

The bias got in the way of the humor.

The bias is the humor.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

The bias is the humor.

BDS, would this fit the human-as-machine theory? Colbert, in his parody of O'Reilly, et al., is bound by convention to automatically spin whatever news he reports in the most transparently ridiculous way he can think of?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by yguy

And why do the most prominent comedians lean almost uniformly to the left?

That's because all the right-wingers are a bunch of dicks who are intent on screwing you. While it's up to the left, since the right is quite often oblivious to its own proclivity, to point out how many ways this is possible. Therein lies the humor, I guess ...

But, then again, what would you expect, from a bunch of leftist fag junkies who, maybe even deserve it?

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Kael

I often find that when a comedian, or other comedic medium such as a show, gets political it loses some or all of its humor value.

I don't find this at all. It depends on how they get political. You yourself say that the Daily Show is funny - TDS is very political. Comedians who have knee-jerk reactions in politics are often the ones that aren't funny, and the ones that can't maintain a sense of detachment (if you can't find anything humorous about your side that's a good sign that you're not funny either). But it's quite easy to have political humor that's very funny.

In fact, most of the most hilarious satires have politics (and religion) as their subjects.

But yeah, there are many comedians who can't do political, and when they try to, the funny just dies. I think another part of this is that it's hard to be funny about subjects that you don't understand - and you know, there are just lots of people who don't know much about politics, and that's going to extend to a number of comedians as well. But maybe it's more funny to those other people who are ignorant as well.

Another good example Adam covered. The Daily Show is very amusing to me. The Colbert Report is not. I stopped watching it a few weeks after it started. The bias got in the way of the humor.

What do you mean by "the bias"?

As a couple of other people said, that's kind of the point... it could be that you're completely missing the joke. For me, the Colbert Report is generally funnier than the Daily Show. But the Daily Show is usually much more informative. So for me, I enjoy watching them as a block, providing different takes on the same events.

[Farren]

yguy, the simple answer is that the left has less inhibitions, sacred cows and so on, which gives them a hell of a lot more latitude in terms of what they can make fun of and how they can make fun of it. It also means they're far more likely to rip off "their own" than right wingers are, even if they get more lulz ripping on right wingers.

Although it wasn't humour, PJ Myers recent deliberate provocation of Catholics illustrates what I'm talking about quite nicely. In response to some incident or other, he posted an image on his blog of a deliberately desecrated communion wafer, a deliberately desecrated koran and a mutilated copy of "The God Delusion". By "desecrating" an atheist bestseller at the same time as showing his disrespect for a Catholic holy cow, he was making the point that atheists don't consider anything sacred. Catholics couldn't exactly respond in kind.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by erimir

What do you mean by "the bias"?

Well, TDS mocks politics in general. Something I can heartily enjoy, as the whole thing is one sad, hilarious mess. TCR is like what Adam said earlier, only "OMG, TEH CONSURVATIVZ R SO FUNNEH!" rather than "teh liburalz". Now, I've not watched a full episode beyond a dozen or so when the show first started, so things may be different now, but my point is that it just gets old to me, when a show or comedian or what have you is so one-note.

I get the joke, it's not hard to get, though I have heard of people who seem to think he's a legit conservative commentator. I just don't find it all that amusing. It's not like I hate the show, I mean, if all I did was watch tv, it certainly wouldn't be at the bottom of my list. Ex: I love the way he makes points by whipping off his glasses, even dramatically putting them on just to whip them off again. That's funny. It's just not at the tope either, even if we're only talking about political satire shows. Like I said, I enjoy good political satire (I had a thread about the very subject a bit ago...), but when they get too preachy or too one-sided, it loses humor to me.

[erimir]

Well, if you only saw the first couple months, then I would have to say the show has developed past just a satire of Bill O'Reilly.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Adam

BDS, would this fit the human-as-machine theory? Colbert, in his parody of O'Reilly, et al., is bound by convention to automatically spin whatever news he reports in the most transparently ridiculous way he can think of?

That is the character he plays but often he has trouble taking it to the extremes and it often shows. He is constantly giving a sort of "wink" to the audience with an implicit acknowledgment that it is too ridiculous too keep a strait face. For many though the irony may be too opaque. It ain't a pie in the face.

[Seven of Nine]

Originally Posted by Watser?

I certainly wouldn't pay YOU to make me laugh, you have the sense of humour of a leek.

um, er, Watser?. I was just wondering: is there any particular reason for your charactorizing leeks as being especially humorless? For instance, did some leek fail to laugh at a joke you told? um, and how much do you ordinarily pay someone to make you laugh?

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Seven of Nine

um, er, Watser?. I was just wondering: is there any particular reason for your charactorizing leeks as being especially humorless? For instance, did some leek fail to laugh at a joke you told?

Leeks never laugh at any of my jokes nor tell any funny jokes of their own. Also I like the word leek. Also I like pictures of leeks.

Originally Posted by Seven of Nine

um, and how much do you ordinarily pay someone to make you laugh?

Well, yguy asked why we pay people to make us laugh. I have on occasion paid money however to go to a show by some comedian or bought cds or dvds by comedians

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Farren

yguy, the simple answer is that the left has less inhibitions, sacred cows and so on

Yes, I'm aware of the conceit, dearly held by liberals, that conservatives have no sense of humor. What you guys don't understand is that humor is necessarily linked to truth, wherefore if the beliefs you have an emotional investment in are lies, you will find humor in things that aren't funny and vice versa. That's how Sandra Bernhard felt justified in including a declaration that Sarah Palin would be gang raped by black guys if she ever set foot in NYC. And that's why when Reagan, speaking into what he thought was a dead mike, said

I'm pleased to announce that I've just signed legislation making the Soviet Union illegal. Bombing will begin in 5 minutes.

I laughed for 5 minutes straight, whereas liberals were not the least bit amused.

Although it wasn't humour, PJ Myers recent deliberate provocation of Catholics illustrates what I'm talking about quite nicely. In response to some incident or other, he posted an image on his blog of a deliberately desecrated communion wafer, a deliberately desecrated koran and a mutilated copy of "The God Delusion". By "desecrating" an atheist bestseller at the same time as showing his disrespect for a Catholic holy cow, he was making the point that atheists don't consider anything sacred.

It doesn't do that. It just demonstrates that he doesn't consider a copy of the book sacred. Whenever it is suggested, for instance, that ID should be given equal status with evolution in education, atheists can usually be counted on to display plenty of religious fervor.