Suicidal Humor

In response to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention's (AFSP) press release urging the entertainment industry to take responsibility for depictions of suicide on the screen or TV, I feel that their response was relatively unsuccessful. I feel that their success could have been increased and they could have had a better reaction had they noted the lack of connection between media portrayals and recent suicides. Part of this is that there could possibly be no correlation between suicides since the October 29th episode of The Office and the depiction of Michael Scott hanging himself.

While they do state that "[m]ore than 50 studies world-wide have consistently led to the same conclusion, explicit media depictions of suicide may prompt vulnerable people to copy the act", they never mention the fact that suicide rates also tend to rise during the holiday months of November and December. Perhaps the suicides are related to that statistic?

Michael even addresses that "suicide is never the answer" shortly after he depicts himself being hanged. Although he does depict a suicide, he also states that suicide "is the easy way out, you are never alone". This message is one of hope, in all reality. Having dealt with two friends who have been placed on 72 hour suicidal watch (three separate incidents) one of the best things to tell them is that they're not alone and that others feel the same way. It is also important to note that as Michael said, suicide is never the answer. It will not solve any issues. I feel that his depiction actually was rather smart and that The Office should never have come under fire for this depiction.

Racial Humor: Funny, Or Wrong?

Before I get into actually examining jokes based on race, I want to provide some examples with which I will be working.

The First is Whoopi Goldberg's "Bat Joke". The joke itself is completed less than a minute into the clip, yet Whoopi brings up some interesting points in the last half of the clip.

The second is a song from a musical called Avenue Q called "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist"

Rather than posting the lyrics, I will just link to them, since the blog would be incredibly long at that point. Lyrics

So, is the Bat Joke as told by Whoopi Goldberg funny? From the audience's response, I think it's clear that it is. But, is it hate speech? My thought is that yes, to a point. But I look at this as a "freedom of speech" issue. Take UW Oshkosh (and any UW school for that matter). As a university, they had to decide whether or not to allow people to come onto campus. In allowing those Speaker Series presentations and other groups to bring their own speakers to campus, they also must allow those who come and preach hatred to campus and claim that everyone on campus is going to Hell because they're not Born Again Christians. (Not a generalization, those are my experiences and those are the preachers who come and point out people in the crowd to say, "you're going to Hell"). We want to allow those negative speakers so we are able to allow the positive speakers. According to John Palmer, Assistant Dean of Students, it was one of those "All or Nothing" issues.

I am one of those people that believes the KKK has every right to organize and say what they will, that's one of the things that makes this country great. However, if they're having a rally at one end of a park, you can be sure I'd be having a counter rally at the other end.

So are racist jokes hatred speech? Yes, they are, however, I think that they have just as much right to say those jokes as other comedians have to say non-racist jokes. I think what the difference is between racist jokes and racist remarks, is that they're (generally) not directed at individuals, rather than the community (which isn't better, and I don't like it, but it happens)

But He's Not A Redneck!

The question at hand here is are people outside of a group allowed to make fun of those inside the group. One such example of this is the Blue Collar Comedy Tour. The Blue Collar Comedy Tour, now one of the best rated comedy shows on Comedy Central consists of four men: Dan Whitney, Jeff Foxworthy, Bill Engvall and Ron White.

While two of the four men fit the role of "redneck comedian", two others, Dan Whitney, and Jeff Foxworthy come from different backgrounds. Foxworthy, although from the south, also grew up just outside of Atlanta Georgia, hardly "redneck country". Whitney grew up in south eastern Nebraska. (It should also be noted that Engvall comes from a town of 50,000+ people).

So how is it that they are able to make these jokes?

Personally, I feel that any comedian is able to make a joke about anyone or anything, regardless of their standing in that group/role. However, there is a point where jokes are funny, and jokes are offensive. I do not find the Blue Collar Comedy tour to be funny at all (with maybe one or two exceptions per comedian). But overall, it's not funny, so I will switch to a different example.

Jokes relating to the LGBTQ community. As a member of the community, often I am searching for new findings and media related to the community as a whole. Sometimes, I find what I am seeing incredibly funny: Will and Grace (although that's a different story and another blog post entirely), Ellen Degeneres, Kathy Griffin, Margaret Cho, etc. Yet, some of those people are not part of the community, in fact, only Ellen identifies as such (at least openly, I tend to have my doubts about some of the others). So why are they able to make jokes about the LGBTQ community without negative repercussions?

It seems to extend from the fact that they are all incredibly big allies to the community, however, there also seems to be a different idea behind this:

As Shana Naomi Krochmal writes in her article (entitled: "Did You Hear The One About A Straight Man Telling A Gay Joke? It Was Funny") in the August 2007 edition of Out magazine, "what does it matter who's telling the joke as long as being the punchline doesn't require letting haters off the hook?". It is very possible that those within the community telling jokes are incredibly homophobic (internalized homophobia). Those outside of any given community are able to joke around about different issues, but again, to a point.

After thinking about whether or not someone needs to be within a community to be able to joke about that community, we need to examine the jokes being told.

Are the facts in a joke true? Is that what makes them funny?

More often than not, I would say that the "facts" in a joke are perceived to be true, or perhaps at one time were true. Take Margaret Cho's joke about gay personal ads compared to straight personal ads. She notes a difference in the two, where one is looking for a companion (the straight ads) and the other (the gay ads) are looking just to get sex. This is one of the common misconceptions about the LGBTQ community, that they are more promiscuous than the straight community. But yet, it's funny. I almost peed my pants while watching that clip. I think what accounts for the difference is the fact that (generally)(and this is what makes the joke funny) straight people are much more conservative with theie sexuality than those in the LGBTQ community, so rather than bouncing around the issue, there is a direct path, and it is known what people want.

This goes for any kind of joke.

Compulsory Heterosexuality at work...

Let me just start by saying that this is not a humorous blog post (so it's not for class). After this class, I intend to change this blog into a blog that focuses more and more on my area of studies and one that I can look back to for inspiration/advice for others.

Having said that:

So I attended the Diversity and Leadership Conference at UW Oshkosh today. I have always been one to admit that I know we all (but even I) have a long way to go when it comes to diversity and understanding.

So the keynote speaker, Brian Johnson (amazing speaker, really) also presented one of the small educational sessions. In this session he told a story. (I don't know all the details, but I'll repeat the story best that I can)

A long time ago, there lived a king and queen in a kingdom by the sea. They lived in their castle with their servants. The only way into the castle was to cross a moat built around it. In the moat, there were man-eating fish. So the only way across it was a boat or the draw bridge.

Guarding the draw bridge was a strong guard. One day, the king told his wife not to leave the castle, and that he would be going on an overnight hunting trip. As he left, he told the guard not to let anyone into the castle, and if he did, there would be extreme consequences to pay.

So the king heads out into the country. That night, the queen leaves the castle covered in a shawl to meet her lover. Upon returning, the guard would not let the queen in. The queen demanded to be let in, for she's the queen of the castle. The guard stood strong.

Frustrated, the queen found a local fisherman who owned a boat. The captain of the boat said that he would ferry the queen over for 1000 gold pieces. The queen did not have that on her, and said to the captain that she could pay him when they arrived on the island. The captain of the boat denied that option.

The queen then went to her lover and begged for the money. The lover refused as well.

Still frustrated, and now angry, the queen went back to the drawbridge and tried to force her way past the guard. The guard after trying to stop her, took out his sword and killed her.


After that story was told. We were divided into groups and told to rank, in order from 1-5 (1 being most responsible, and 5 being least responsible) who is responsible for the queen's death.

(The 5 characters are the king, the queen, the guard, the captain of the boat, and the lover)

While discussing, Brian Johnson was listening to all of our conversations.

As a member of the LGBTQ community, I felt that I was so good and not assuming...and yet...in none of the groups did the possibility come up of the queen's lover being a female. Everyone referred to the lover as "he" or "him". This, along with other sessions, really made me realize that as "advanced" as I thought I was, I still have a LONG way to go.

Men or Women: Look Who's Talking

A question that I've heard, even outside of this class is: Are men or women funnier? (Then the question was raised for the class: Why are there so many more male comedians and comedic actors than female comedians and comedic actors?)

To answer the first question. I do not think that men are funnier than women or that women are funnier than men. Personally, I look at each individuals materials and analyze whether or not those are funny. If I were to look at some of my favorite comedians: Ellen Degeneres, Lewis Black, Mitch Fatel, Wanda Sykes, Mitch Hedburg, George Carlin (I could keep going) the list would probably follow a similar pattern, maybe two or three men for every woman on the list. However, I do no think that it is because they're men that they're funny, for I believe that if women did the same skit, they would be just as successful. I do not believe that there is a correlation between being a male and being funny or being a female and being funny. I think it just is one of those things, "some people are, some people are not". There are many male comedians that I just do not find funny, just as there are female comedians that lie in the same category.

Onto the second question. Why are there so many more male comedians and comedic actors than female comedians and comedic actors?

And I feel that it is this way because this is how it started. As the article, "Battle of the Sexes", explains; "to produce humor in conversation is to take the power role" (16). I, however, believe it is the opposite (or at least historically, has been the opposite). It is those with a power role who can produce humor. Up until the late 1980s, early 1990s, women were almost invisible in the comedic world. Males have traditionally had the power in most of the world, and therefore males were the first to be signed to be comedians. More and more females have come and risen the ranks of the comic world and are now just as, if not more famous than some of their male counterparts.

I think that more and more women are going to be entering the comic world in the upcoming years. I feel they are able to do this because one of the easiest ways to get there, is to be able to laugh at yourself and make fun of yourself (as well as others, as long as it's tasteful). And women, since they have traditionally been put down throughout history, have a lot of ways to do this. Also, women are more willing to (in my experience) bring up "taboo" topics and challenge these issues. This is seen in the interview with Julie Goldman and Kate Rigg. They talk about issues such as Racism, and how it can positively be Incorporated into a routine. They use Sarah Silverman as an example, and explained how although it was deemed racist, really, it was a rather clever way to address the issue or race.

Now, just because I like it so much, I'm going to direct you to a webcomic xkcd, a comic that I feel addresses gendered humor really well..

Women and Men: Laughing A lot or a little?

As stated in the article in the study completed, women do tend to laugh 126% more often than men do (Provine 59). This goes back to one of my previous blog posts when I said that (in my belief) men laugh louder and harder, but women tend to laugh at more things (more often).

In terms of laughing at different things, I tend to believe that yes, there is a difference in what males and females tend to laugh at. Although the article did not address this issue, I think that there is clear evidence for this.

I think back to last Wednesday night (October 28th). Some friends of mine and I were in my friend Abbey's room. South Park came on. The make up of the people in the room were three males (Myself, Kyle, and Mark) and three females (Abbey, Courtney, and Jessica). The three girls instantly wanted to turn off the show, whereas the three guys requested that the show stay on (We ended up watching 1/2 of the show, then switching it). But even if this is an isolated incident, it supports the previous claim that I made in this post.

However, one other interesting thing that came out of this night of South Park does relate to the article. The idea that laughter is contagious. Mark, Kyle and I were laughing uncontrollably at a certain time in the show (where the captain of a boat gets impaled with a harpoon) and two of the three girls started laughing with us (They later admitted that some parts of the episode were funny, but overall, they do not like the show).

What is not aware (to us at this point) whether or not we laughed more due to the fact that we had been drinking alcohol that night (although really, not a lot of it, ~1-2 beers per person)...that could be something interesting to think about, the effect of alcohol on laughter.

Research Proposal

I am going to be analyzing the humor behind gender differences, but more specifically the use of humor within the LGBTQ community. Using the book "Gender Outlaw" by Kate Bornstein, I plan on analyzing how she uses humor to try to convey her message about transsexualism.

Starting off in the beginning of the novel, the first sentence written by Bornstein, a MtF transsexual (Born a Male, transitioned to Female) says "People are starting to ask me about fashion. I love that! Maybe they think the doctor sewed in some fashion sense during my genital conversion surgery" (Bornstein 3). Right off the bat, Bornstein gives one of the big differences attributed to gender, sex, and sexuality. Women and homosexual men have a higher sense of fashion than heterosexual men do.

I already know that there are great differences in what is found funny between males and females (sex) and masculinity and femininity (gender). In many ways, the best humor about gender differences comes from satirical comedy, such as this work that I am analyzing. I want to explore just how different the genders can be as well as explore how the LGBTQ community would probably tend to find this book funnier than the heterosexual community.

Humor and Persuasion

Personally, I believe humor can help in persuasion, although I will admit that other forms of pathos could help much much more. The article for the week explains that at times, humor did help the bargain because it helped relieve the stress of the buyer, and they were more willing to pay a higher amount at this point.

There are, of course, a lot of differences that need to be taken into account, if possible, before using humor to try to sell a product. The first difference, the one that the article addressed, is that of sex. Males and females generally have a different view of what's humorous and what is not. In my own experience, I find that males laugh out loud more often, but females tend to find more things slightly funny, and smile more, or laugh quietly more often. In addition, males tend to laugh at more inappropriate things, such as South Park or Toilet Humor, whereas females tend to laugh at more sophisticated comedy, like the movie The Proposal, or shows that do not involve crude humor, such as How I Met Your Mother. (There are of course exceptions to this, but I have personally found this to be true for most cases).

Perhaps one of the best places to look for humor in advertisements is just about any ad that takes place during the Super Bowl.

I know personally, this one is one of my favorite commercials to come out of the 2009 Super Bowl. It is trying to sell a diet soda to men, more specifically Pepsi Max.



While personally I enjoy diet soda as it is, this commercial is just hilarious. But I always enjoy watching other people get injured. It's the whole Schadenfreude idea, that we take pleasure out of someone's pain. This commercial uses that very well. Every time I watch it I literally laugh out loud.

Kierkegaard *insert comical finish here*

"Wherever there is life, there is contradiction, and wherever there is contradiction, the comical is present" (83).

To Kierkegaard, life is a big joke! Or at least it can be...there are two parts to life, the tragic, and the comical. And it seems to be, that Kierkegaard is saying that if you see a way out of a situation, any situation can be funny. And in my experience, that is the case...or at least the situation is not as bad as it once was. (I also feel that when looking back on a situation, even if it was bad, it's funny now)

The perfect example of this would be my Parent's Honeymoon. They decided that rather than flying somewhere exotic, they would drive from Milwaukee to somewhere in North Dakota (or maybe South Dakota, I haven't heard this story in a while, but I remember enough of it to get the point across). While driving, their car broke down in the middle of the high way. Since they were on their honeymoon, rather than one staying behind, they decide to both get out, and walk towards the next exit (which had a hotel and a couple gas stations). They decide to walk with their luggage not knowing if they could get back to their car that night. While walking, it starts to rain, not raid, so much as it was pouring down incredibly hard. So heavy that the road started to flood in parts.

Just like that...well...maybe less severe

So they get to the hotel, soaking wet, and they ended spending the rest of their honeymoon there (by choice, their car got fixed). Looking back on it, and everytime they tell the story, they can barely finish it they're laughing so hard. Then of course we all start laughing (perhaps due to superiority theory?) But they said that they would never change it if they could.

Cue footnote...an incredibly long footnote.

Think of it like this...only about 100 times bigger...

In the footnote, he gives a couple of examples of humor (which is stretching the word...greatly):

"If one were to say: 'I would stake my life that there is fully four shillings worth of gold in the binding of this book,' it would be comical. The contradiction is that between the highest pathos (to risk one's life) and the object; it is teasingly sharpened by the word fully, which keeps open the prospect of perhaps four and one-half shillings worth, as if that were less contradictory" (85).

That's funny? I would say that's just weird...and maybe a little stupid. But humor clearly changes over time.

If Kierkegaard got one thing right about laughter (and it appears to be timeless), it's that we enjoy laughing at the intoxicated...at least occasionally.

Schopenhauer, sans the Power

Arthur Schopenhauer adds to what Kant already wrote about. I like Schopenhauer much better than Kant, especially his theory.

While he agrees that there is an expectation of what is to come, and when it is not fulfilled, we laugh, Schopenhauer adds a part about the real object and the concept. See the example below..

Kayla: Ok...What's yours like?
Me: Mine holds junk
Kayla: Damn, I thought it was a cup
*Laughter Ensues*

This example actually happened, but I changed the name of the guesser, and I left out a lot of the previous clues that made her think it was a cup (i.e. holds liquid).

Another example, although in a mildly depressing (while hilarious) form comes from (yet again) my favorite comic strip Cyanide&Happiness!

While it is sad that the boy's parents get divorced, it's funny how it happens, and the fact that neither of the parents stopped to ask the boy what it was (or for them...what caused it).

There is a concept: the cup, or the drinking problem, and then there is the real object, a cup to protect a man, and a cup to drink out of; and a drinking problem with alcohol, and a mathematical drinking problem. What ensues is what Schopenhauer referes to as "ludicrous".

Kant, an Expectation Unfulfilled...

First of all, I really don't enjoy reading Kant. I think he's very boring, even if occasionally right. Perhaps it stems from a philosophy class I took freshmen year...regardless, I get bored out of my mind while reading him.

Enough of the aside, and onto Kant. First, Kant's major idea is that "laughter is an affection arising from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing" (47). Of all the online comics I've read, one Cyanide&Happiness is the one that I've noticed to be true in almost every case. While some are offensive, others show this case exactly.

This example is one of my favorite from this comic site. In the first frame we get an example of something we wouldn't expect; a father trying to sell his son. But throughout the strip, we also don't expect the son to be going along with this. (I will admit that I believe the imagery helps, that is to say the facial expressions of the characters).


Kant also says that laughter helps people feel healthier. He goes through the whole bodily process that results in laughter. This is hard to disagree with in by any means, since we know that laughing releases endorphins which elevate our mood.

While there is no punch-line to most Cyanide and Happiness comics (something which Kant emphasizes), they are funny nonetheless. While jokes with a punch line may be much easier to deliver, a punch-line joke is no longer necessary. Many comedians have switched to one-liners to get many points across quickly. Demetri Martin is a perfect example of this. I won't go into his skit, but if you're interested, look him up!

Aristotle - Boors and Buffoons!

In the first sentence of the required reading, we get what Aristotle believes about comedy, "comedy...is an imitation of people who are worse than average" (14).

Aristotle also wrote about what he called "buffoons" and "boors". Buffoons are those that "cannot resist any temptation to be funny, and spares neither himself nor others if he can get a laugh" (15). *this, to a point, is definitely me* The Boor "contributes nothing and takes offense at everything" (16). I don't even know how many people I know who fit these two categories. Although, I would argue that in society today, the "buffoons" are more conscientious about others' feelings than perhaps they were in his time.

Aristotle also addresses different types of humor from different types of people; educated and uneducated from well-bred and vulgar people.

Plato

So I failed, on one of the first assignments of the semester! I forgot to do a blog post on Plato, so I figure I'll do it now, regardless of what happens.

Plato:

Plato's work is created through dialogue between (often) two "characters", Socrates, and one other one. In this particular work, it happens to be Protarchus. The discussion between the two leads to the statement that "Ignorance...is an evil". From here, they discuss the three large incidents, if you will, of ignorance in people, ignorance of wealth, beauty, and wisdom. They also claim that the ignorance of wisdom is the most severe. But then they address something else. How through people we see, we gain pleasure from their ignorance of themselves (or at least for me, extreme ignorance of just about anything).

Plato and Protarchus argue that we get pleasure at other's pain (in some cases just their ignorance). I totally agree with this. Although this particular song does not refer to laughter, it's the same idea, that we get pleasure out of other people's pain and misfortune. Why? It makes us feel better about ourselves. Maynard, the vocalist and the lyricist of this song (Vicarious by Tool) hits exactly what Plato was trying to get at.

And "that's all I have to say about that."

First Entry: Working Definition of "Rhetoric"

In order to fully understand this blog, readers will have to have a basic understanding of what Rhetoric actually means. Prior to taking this class (and, heck, even a little today) I had no clue what Rhetoric was. And the average reader (anyone outside this class) may be in a similar boat. So to provide a background, this first post will be a basic definition for an understanding of what is to come.

Rhetoric, through history, has been defined as the art of persuasion. Arguably the most well-known name in the study of Rhetoric (although many may not know he wrote about it) is Aristotle. Aristotle, however, is not the end-all-be-all of the study of Rhetoric. Lloyd Bitzer and Richard Vatz (among others of course) have also studied (at length) Rhetoric.