How to joke in the era of political correctness: 15 serious answers
We used to be considered wit one of the most valuable properties. But it is around the jokes that the main controversies of recent years unfold. Do good humor have limits, can a dubious joke be funny, where a joke turns into humiliation, what to do with black humor and in general, is it possible to joke a politically correct person? We asked about this very different, but quite witty people.
Interview: Alice Taiga
Illustrations: Anya Oreshina
Tatyana Nikonova
Olga Strakhovskaya
Mikhail Idov
Andrey Parshikov
Anna Narinskaya
Maria Semendyaeva
Maya Chesnokova
Syuyumbike Davlet-Kildeeva
Stanislav Zelvensky
Ilya Dyer
George Birger
Sergey Blokhin
Margarita Zhuravleva
Nastya Krasilnikova
Elena Vanina
Tatyana Nikonova
educator, creator of the blog Sam Jones' Diary
I think evil jokes are not jokes, they are just harsh, but malicious, wrapped in a joking shape. Because of this, they do not turn into humor, but rather are a sign of cowardice. Instead of honestly saying everything that boils, you throw poisonous wits, putting the offender in an even more vulnerable position, because if he does not laugh, then you can blame him in the absence of a sense of humor. So, ultimately, the difference is simple: a good joke opens gaps in the fabric of reality, and a bad one tries to hurt, hiding behind laughter. I do not think that there are things over which one cannot joke, including in black, the question is more likely relevance in a particular situation. I heard the most monstrous wit when we did a project for the Ministry of Culture, but all of them were there and everyone understood the context correctly. Let's say I can tell a joke about a conversation between two embryos before an abortion, but I will refrain from retelling in a crowded place or if I know that the interviewee is trying to have children. What am I, I will not find another joke about the topic? Lousy then a joker from me. But I do not consider bad humor to be black. Property laughter - to relieve tension. When you laugh, you sort of neutralize what is happening. Black humor, it seems to me, sometimes also plays the role of a kind of household magic: they neighing, reduced the degree of horror of a possible frightening situation. I had an American boyfriend, he once told me that the Russians constantly, under the guise of jokes, retell everything that they fear. As if this is our way of dealing with fear and anxiety.
Therefore, I don’t think that political correctness makes humor worse; rather, outrage against it shows what we are afraid of. At one time I thought that a diluted world awaits us, where it is impossible to spit, so as not to offend anyone, but now to me "witty and politically incorrect" jokes simply ceased to seem ridiculous, because they do not touch anything disturbing in the soul. I once had a radio broadcast, the opponent told a joke: "What is the difference between a feminist and a sumo wrestler? My wrestler has a shaved leg." This is not humor, not courage, not revealing reality. This is a flat and boring attempt to hurt.
up ↑
Olga Strakhovskaya
senior editor of The Blueprint
A disclaimer is needed here: I hardly see sitcoms and stand-ups, because most of the humor seems flat to me, frontal or loud. At the same time, I myself like to joke so that the glass shakes; I even have a Facebook profile with a quote from the Pulp song about the fragile masculinity "I Learned to drink, and I Learned to smoke, and I Learned to drink a dirty joke", and this is all true. On the other hand, I share the opinion that language defines consciousness and that jokes “about gays, women and blacks” are all forms of so-called hate speech, that is, an expression of homophobia, xenophobia and misgynia. As a result, it turns out that the area of intersection is non-abusive and ridiculous is very narrow, this is the side along which it is rather difficult to pass. But, it seems to me, we should not complain that freedom of speech was taken away from us. Yes, inventive jokes are more difficult, but the more interesting the task.
Actually, the most important thing is to feel where this line between the funny and the offensive passes. Misha Idov recently said very well about this (in principle, it’s just to watch his “Comedian”): that laughter of the strong over the weak is never funny. That is why for me almost the best jokes in the world are Sarah Silverman’s “5 word speech” and Rowan Atkinson’s sketch about a gramophone from Not the Nine O'Clock News. But from the jokes on Comedy Radio begins to flow blood from the ears. Another reliable (and almost safe) move is self-irony. I believe that the jokes turned on themselves are not toxic to others - on the contrary, they create a sense of community, including common fakap, over which you can laugh, and not in horror and loneliness be ashamed of them in the corners. And this is almost a therapeutic effect: to laugh at yourself is the most legitimate way to let out your demons and see that they are not so terrible. In addition to such jokes you can always understand where it hurts: if there are too many jokes on a topic, then you should think about it. A good (that is, a bad one, of course) in this sense is an example - Louis C. Kay with his leitmotif about masturbation; as we were all shown in "Leaving Neverland" - if you want to hide something, put it on the most prominent place.
up ↑
Mikhail Idov
director and screenwriter
The fact is that any joke consists of three components: the joke itself; the one who tells it; and the one before whom she is told. If we consider a joke as something separate from the narrator and the audience, then there can be no limitations here. You can joke about everything. The question is who and to whom. Freedom of speech for me is absolute and does not extend except to personal threats and (textbook legal example) cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But good humor hits from the bottom up, and this vector is set precisely by people on both sides of the joke.
Having spoken publicly almost any joke from the repertoire of my beloved Chris Rock or Dave Chapelle, I will go to the hospital; on the other hand, joke with me about greedy w *** s (if you are not a Jew) - and you will go to the hospital already. This is a stupid situation, I agree - well, so slavery and the Holocaust, too, were not particularly brilliant ideas, here we are loosening their legacy and will be free to joke with each other. In the meantime, well, yes, women's jokes about stupid men are much funnier than men's jokes about stupid women, such is the trouble.
The audience is no less important than the narrator. Take the new material by Louis C. Kay, with a joke about schoolchildren who survived the shooting at Parkland (“Didn’t you even get involved in what was interesting in you?”). He does not jar on the subject (believe me, even shooting at school can be funny - if you are a schoolboy, how much was a joke about "blowing up school / killing teacher"). And not even a compromised figure of the narrator. And, oddly enough, it was the listener’s choice: CK spoke to a conservative audience on Long Island, for which the “difficult” joke about child activists was not really difficult at all - it was like a balm for the soul, because it mocked already hated by them "upstarts". That is, at this moment, the comedian who made a career on an uncomfortable truth, more than tried to make his new audience comfortable - he specifically sucked her. So no joke exists out of context. And to kick the weak in the company and for the amusement of the strong is the worst possible context.
up ↑
Andrey Parshikov
art critic and curator of the V-A-C Foundation
Tough and evil joke can also be successful. I love the word "malicious" - such a joke can not be successful. If you initially want not to laugh, but to cause harm, if the basis of your joke is not her self-sufficiency, but something else, if the joke is instrumentalized, then it cannot be successful. Humor is like art. If it is used as a means against someone, it is always visible and always a sign of the powerlessness of the one who is joking, and certainly the audience of such a joke is always deceived.
Black humor is the best humor. All black is generally the best. But he is a violation of ethics. For example, I am convinced that joking against minorities, if you don’t belong to them, is a bad taste. Personally, I will never joke about the Holocaust. And in general I think that the need to follow the words makes humor more difficult and more interesting.
Funny jokes can hurt? Everything is very individual, it is necessary to consider specific cases. Here, for example, was a funny meme "We have become more better dressed." In general, quite often fragments of phrases become funny memes. This joke was born from an interview with a girl who said that life in Russia over the past ten years has become better (which, by the way, is absolutely true in my opinion). And this her mistake about “better” turned out to be fatal. The meme was created and inflated for encouraging generalization: people who like to live in today's Russia more than ten years ago in Russia are not very distant and are not able to speak competently. Out of context, the joke may be funny. But if you know the context, you understand that in fact it is rather offensive. There are situations when it is beneficial to use this meme, but in no case remembering its context. I caught myself on this.
up ↑
Anna Narinskaya
literary critic and curator
The main line for me is not between “success” and “failure” (there may be different opinions, different things are funny to people), but between jokes and audiences. It's one thing if a person says "ha ha, all women are fools" in his kitchen or in a small basement where twenty people gathered, another thing is if he broadcasts on federal television or on a highly promoted YouTube channel. In the first case, he is just an unpleasant person, with whom I do not want to deal, in the second - a pest who is responsible for the mindset of people with whom to fight, which must be exposed.
In general, for me, wit ends where it is adjacent to the force. It’s very easy for us now to joke about minorities and generally to laugh at those who are already so bad, because you won’t have anything for it. If we are talking about "evil" humor - it must be at least as dangerous for someone who utters all these jokes. And the way it is now mostly happening is beautifully described in the bearded anecdote of my childhood. An American says to a Soviet person: “We have freedom, I can go to Washington Square and shout“ Reagan is a fool ”, to which the Soviet replies:“ We have exactly the same freedom, I can also go to Moscow Square and shout “Reagan - fool "". When minorities in our country become protected and strong, so much so that they can fight back, including legally, then maybe something ironic about them will seem ridiculous to me. Until then - definitely not.
up ↑
Maria Semendyaeva
art critic
A successful joke should be ridiculous to everyone, including the object of the joke, and if everyone laughs, moreover, who they have joked with, this is cruelty. It is better to joke about what has already been lived and reflected, but about what is happening right now and at the same time causing strong experiences - only very carefully, focusing on feedback. Therefore, by the way, it is better to joke dangerous jokes personally in order to see the reaction immediately and in case something happens, I apologize right away.
Humor was explored by various philosophers, but everyone agrees that laughter is a reflection of culture. Modern culture is built on respect for emotional life. I think there were always restrictions, just now the main limitation is not to make a mistake with the context.
Personally, I will never joke about nationality, cultural characteristics, beliefs (except for the man-hating type of racism), death and disease. Maybe something else has forgotten, but in general, I believe that it is unacceptable to joke that it would be unpleasant to hear in his address. Well, my hands are pumped up - and I really do not like joking about jocks and what I am trying to do.
It is unacceptable to joke at people who build a bright and different image in social networks or in real life - in general, this is some kind of neolithic theme: joking at those who are different. If I want to wear a bright yellow hat and dye my eyes with orange glitter - this is my business, but it seems to a bunch of people around me that I am "asking for" to be at least neighing at me. The same with any activists with a pronounced position, with cranks. Soviet education assumed that we would be quiet depressive conformists, so everyone who does not fit in is beginning to enrage others. Here we must work on ourselves, and not look for the cause in the environment.
I grew up in a society where it was the norm to make fun of weaknesses. Both at home and at school I was afraid to admit something that really bothers me and touches me, because it would give others a tool for ridicule. I myself also laughed at the weaknesses of others, and now I’m ashamed of it. I think this is familiar to many. Now I try to joke so that I can repeat this joke to the man in the face. This is a good filter.
I like black humor, but not when it is aimed at real people who can be hurt. Sometimes, in order to survive some traumatic events, we mock them: to laugh together at something scary is a guaranteed way to detente and rapprochement with other people. But I would be disgusted with myself from myself, if I constantly turned to black humor. It is quite difficult for the psyche.
up ↑
Maya Chesnokova
founder of Femstepap
I believe that you need to follow the words in principle, and not just in a comedy. We often allow ourselves to say too much on emotions, without thinking about the consequences.
I believe that you can joke about everything, the main thing is to make sure that you are understood correctly. For me, there is a line between a bad joke and a good one. If the whole joke consists of stereotypes, then this is a bad joke, there is no new interesting thought, it is not funny. I will never build a joke, in which both the setup and the punchline simply scatter the stereotypical behavior of women and men. For example, I do not watch Bill Burr, his comedy is not funny to me, because it is based on stereotypes, but it comes from what he and his audience like, so why not joke then?
If you didn’t like the joke, she offended and injured you, you can share this with people who support you. But forbid joking on some topic is impossible. I am a feminist - and when I hear jokes that make fun of feminists, I roll my eyes or cover my face with my hands. I feel ashamed of a comedian who does not even understand the meaning of the term "feminism". But at the same time I do not want this comic to have the right to joke.
up ↑
Syuyumbike Davlet-Kildeeva
PR specialist, blogger, singer
A successful joke is such a joke, after which you really laughed without feeling embarrassed for its author. Evil is a joke that can really offend someone, hurt someone. I believe that the laughter of ten is not worth the tears of one person.
You can joke in principle about everything, but not always and not everywhere. When I worked in the Jewish Museum, we joked about the Holocaust among themselves, because when, for example, you read diaries or descriptions of concentration camps every day, joking is your only way not to go crazy about what you read. In this case, I will not joke like that in public. Or I like black humor like a joke "Sir, why did you bury your wife? - She died, sir," he makes me laugh, but I, for example, will not tell him to the person who really had a wife.
The easiest way is to make fun of others' physical disabilities, as do, for example, children and not very pleasant adults: there is not a lot of mental work here, frankly, but everyone laughs. I once played in KVN, and once my friend from the stage joked about my weight: it was an internal game and everyone understood that it was about me. Before this incident, I thought that you could laugh at people and at yourself, and those who are offended simply lack self-irony. After this incident, I think it is better to joke so as not to offend anyone. And if you really want to joke badly (and this is sometimes a very powerful desire), it is better to call a friend and laugh with him guiltily than to write such a joke on Facebook.
up ↑
Stanislav Zelvensky
film critic
In my opinion, you can joke, which means you need absolutely everything. The fact that jokes on some delicate topics can turn out to be foul, inappropriate, simply unfunny - normal: the so-called humor is ninety-nine percent terrible, regardless of the topic. This can be no reason for censorship, nor for self-censorship.
I do not watch stand-ups and television or web humorists, but in comedies, in the mainstream, where every joke, roughly speaking, the board of directors says, and in the indie segment, where people beat their hands - now Hard times. I don’t really believe in jokes that hurt: in vulnerable gays, blondes, rabbis or dwarfs who resent jokes and suffer from moral suffering because of tweets. Rather, I observe people who are professionally offended for them (exactly like the "feelings of believers" at the other pole). But even truly insulting and outrageous jokes should, in my opinion, enjoy complete immunity as long as they do not turn into an obvious hate speech (all doubts are interpreted in favor of the guilty).
In any case, it is clear that it is pointless to fight with humor. Some type of jokes - say sexist - can be driven out of decent society. It only means that he will flourish beyond. Or eventually die out at all - and thank God. But it seems that so far there have been no such precedents in the history of mankind, so it’s not worth counting on. И понятно, что всегда есть контекст и какие-то нюансы: на панихиду обычно не зовут клоуна, в Израиле, вероятно, болезненно воспринимают шутки про Холокост, а, допустим, у нас в Петербурге не принято шутить про блокаду.But the stronger the temptation to prohibit something and even condemn it, the more violently we must resist it, because where there are jokes, even the worst ones, is human there, and vice versa.
up ↑
Ilya Dyer
manager of international projects "Yandex"
I am not at all an expert in humor and I don’t know why they ask me about it, but it’s interesting to think about it, so I’ll try. I am sure that the only working criterion for a joke is whether it is funny or not. A ridiculous joke, non-politically correct, homophobic can be ridiculous. But any joke has a context, and it is he who determines whether a funny joke or not, aggressive or not, vulgar or not. And here the problems begin: in the space where most of the jokes are joking, everyone has a different context, which means that he is absent.
I think it’s not the jokes that have changed, but the information space in which they are joking. And this space is zero context. With a zero context, any person can be suspected of all sins, the audience does not know anything about him. And if we do not know anything about the context, then the entire cultural foundation for the joke is destroyed. Therefore, you can joke either completely harmless (when the foundation is not very important), or that is a meme (that is, publicly available). It’s scary in public space - you consider yourself a good person, you can afford to joke about anything, but there will definitely be those who don’t know anything about you. Plus, language really bothers us: the space is new, the phenomena are new, and the words, to call it, are old. Say, the word "persecution", which means everything, and therefore nothing. New words are taken by default and without proper reflection - try, say, disassemble where cyberbulling is, and where not.
Accordingly, the space for jokes goes into personal communication and communication in companies where everyone understands this foundation - that is, where it is safe. Say, I can quite joke about gays, and about feminism, and about all the painful and important topics in my native company of people, but I will not do that on Facebook. Why? Because among friends, I do not need to prove that I am not a homophobe, that I am for the rights of women and so on. This, by the way, is not new at all. There is the same rule about jokes about Jews. I can joke them all I want, but I'll be wary of Jewish jokes told by non-Jews.
I am writing this and I think that maybe my rule about the company does not work. Let the jokes about blacks be joked by blacks, about women - women, and about gays - gays. Self-ironic jokes are the best in the world. (Or maybe I inserted this addition, I’m not fully understanding how the wave of public condemnation works, and it’s necessary to arrange these text-based airbags - it’s very difficult to speak in non-context space.)
These two spaces (old and native - non-public, new and terrible - public) are similar to the situation with the Soviet censorship (kitchen conversation vs public), but I would not compare them seriously. Firstly, because the level of freedom in the case of jokes is immeasurably higher. On the other hand, because that censorship was man-made, and now social processes are underway. Censorship must be fought, but here it is necessary to analyze and understand how the laws of social nature are structured. Understand that this is not a transformation of the old public space, but the appearance of a completely new piece of reality with its own rules. Social networks - this is something that has never happened before. And for some reason we believe that this new should work under the old laws. It does not happen.
The most stupid way to deal with the rules in this new space seems to me endless reproduction (primarily in advertising) jokes on painful topics. I do not understand why people all the time are engaged in self-defense. There are lots of other ways to joke. However, I think that all this always comes up against the same problem: you need to make a joke, but it turns out not funny. But if you are funny about a safe topic, no one will notice. And if you are funny about feminism, for some reason you shot yourself in the leg.
At the end of last year, everyone was discussing the rules of Wall Street in the #MeToo era, horrified by the new public censorship. Not noticing how the article ends on Bloomberg. And it ends with a very simple rule: "Just try not to be an asshole". The perfect rule is the same with jokes.
up ↑
George Birger
journalist
It all depends on whose account the joke is. If not for your own, then there are problems with it. That is, if for a joke it is necessary to beat a lying one, then this is a bad joke. And if the object of ridicule is someone who is in the position of power or a privileged majority, then it will not lose anything from him. But the best jokes, as a rule, work when the author to some extent laughs at himself, and not at someone else's expense.
Who is joking and laughing at whom - a little different things. I personally will not publicly laugh at members of any oppressed minorities; at least those whose representatives I myself am not. Bad taste can be ironic; in a society where some statements are a priori equated to unethical, you can build jokes based on this. For example, in a joke about gay homophob itself may be an object of ridicule.
The need to somehow filter it was always a comedian. And humor has always been the weapon of those who have less rights than others, and through humor they conveyed this experience in such a way that it does not seem that they complain and whine too much. Accordingly, the more rights people have, the more difficult and interesting is humor.
Problems with politically incorrect jokes do not begin when they are heard, but when the author begins to justify himself, and his advocates aggressively take his side. Summarize all the above. For example, I really liked the last haste of Ricky Gervais on Netflix, where there are a lot of politically incorrect jokes (as he always has), but they are all reflexive and his original position is to do no harm to anyone. Sometimes, some of his jokes still turn out to be quite problematic - and he is ready to discuss it and is ready to apologize, but he is not restrained from voicing them.
up ↑
Sergey Blokhin
DJ, specialist in public relations
Humor is a form of comprehension of reality, there are no forbidden topics here by definition. You can joke about anything. But a joke can be an act of aggression, and in such cases people should be protected. People, and not beliefs, ideals, worldviews and other phenomena that can not be offended. And not all people, of course, but only good ones (I have a list). Seriously, bad taste and ethics violation is ridiculing vulnerable people and groups. It does not require any intellectual effort, it is too easy and therefore unfunny. Political correctness protects first of all such people and such groups, that is, it forces us to include the head, understand the subject, understand the context. It’s okay to joke about gays in the US, where same-sex marriage is legalized today, but you should think about it before doing it in Russia, where Milonov and Kadyrov are today.
So censorship, which prohibits making fun of what is called authority, is the opposite of political correctness. Power, in the broad sense of the word, needs to be limited, and any satire about power has every chance of becoming relevant. Unlike servile satire, which blooms with us. Consciousness of the Russian Putin's period under conditions of restriction of freedoms is deformed, this also applies to humor. Laughing at the powerful of this world is risky, therefore, more often they are ridiculed by vulnerable people and groups who are safe to laugh at. A collective "Comedy Club" appears with endless jokes about women and migrant workers. Political correctness is one of the last problems in Russia.
up ↑
Margarita Zhuravleva
journalist and producer
You can actually joke about everything, then just a question of consequences: they can give you something in the face, stop communicating and something else - this is what one friend of mine says, who jokes a lot. I agree with him. It seems to me that with jokes the same boundaries act as with everything in life. I will not joke with an unfamiliar person for any sensitive topic - however, I’m also unlikely to ask him about his background, income, sexual orientation or health status. If a person is joking about himself, he is entitled to any joke. For example, I sometimes joke about my father, who died many years ago and with whom I was not familiar. A couple of times it shocked my interlocutors, but it seemed everyone understood - I’m like this, sharing my feelings in this way and seeing my life that way. At the same time, the borders remain: I joke about my father, you can joke about yours - I don’t need to.
Bad taste, in my opinion, does not exist. A person who utters an awkward phrase about someone's nationality (it seems to him that he is joking like that) simply informs the world about his views on life in my communication system - thanks, now I know more and less about you I want to talk to you.
up ↑
Nastya Krasilnikova
journalist, editor, author of the telegraph channels "Daughter of the Robber" and "Your Mother!"
What am I not going to joke about and what, I think, is it impossible to joke? I consider inappropriate discriminatory jokes and jokes about someone's health or illness. But in general, it seems to me that between two friends or in a friendly company jokes can be very different. We can joke around evil, cruelly and not very nicely and not hate each other for it.
But if we talk about public speaking - about the jokes of companies and brands, jokes in marketing communications - other rules work. For example, when Aviasales says that the children of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are extras, hinting at their adopted children, then this is an unacceptable racist joke on behalf of the brand, absolutely unacceptable. This is a serious damage to the reputation and that for which you are watching this ad, you feel Spanish shame.