‽istis ponders jokes (weekending January 6th
2024)
·
as
the echo of pulled Christmas crackers - and the groans at the jokes many of
them contain - fade
·
as Epiphany
looms and some may ask: ‘Three Wise Men? You must be joking!’
·
as
the tongue-twisting words of a song in a pantomime are chosen to trip an
audience into laughter: ‘One smart fella, he felt smart…’[i]
etc.
· as the current Home Secretary proves that you can hold (and continue to hold) one of the so-called ‘great offices of state’ in the UK without apparently being too cleverly[ii] or at all funny - 'joking' about giving his wife '“a little bit of Rohypnol in her drink every night” which was “not really illegal if it’s only a little bit”. Mr Cleverly also laughed that the secret to a long marriage was ensuring your spouse was “someone who is always mildly sedated so she can never realise there are better men out there.”' (according to The Mirror newspaper: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/james-cleverly-joked-giving-wife-31741719)
· as Ricky Gervais and Dave Chappelle hit the news with controversial ‘comedy’ specials[iii] that may be ‘funny or foul’[iv], near the mark, defining the line for us, opening up dialogue, proving comedy to be a great equaliser, just a cheap shot, engaging in school-playground antics, edgy, transgressive, progressive, regressive or digressive, exercising a form of activism, wasting bandwidth, being a free speech activist, etc?...
‽istis ponders humour, what is a joke, what is funny, should
there be ‘a line’, where do you draw the line and wonders again[v]
whether there is any place for the phrase: ‘just because you can doesn’t mean
that you should’? Oh, and when and why might an apology be issued?
Here are some of the words of that ‘great state office holder’ James
Cleverly doing the rounds of breakfast news programmes this week:
‘It was meant to be a joke and I completely accept that it was
hurtful for a number of people which is why I apologised when asked about it –
and that apology was heartfelt.’ (BBC Breakfast 2.1.2024)
‘There are things that people say in private they would hope
remain private and we all perhaps say things in private that we wouldn’t want
or choose not to say publicly.’ (Good Morning Britian 2.1.2024)
And then what could be described as a ‘politicians’ apology’ was
also added: ‘I’m frustrated that the conversation has been deflected by the
words that I’ve said and that’s why I apologised.’ (also GMB 2.1.2024)[vi]
‽istis understands the free-speech, no holds barred, the joke is
on you for laughing at what I’ve said, I was being ironic arguments – and even
the ‘no publicity is bad publicity’ fall back - but wonders whether there might
be a couple of simple guiding principles that more comedians, politicians, laughers,
smirkers and guffawers and, indeed, any of us could follow (whether in public
or private, whether recorded, reported or lost in the passing of the moment) –
summed up as:
·
If
someone can say of the topic or experience: ‘that was/is no joke’ - then
perhaps it should not be the subject of a joke?
·
If
someone can say ‘that was/isn’t funny’ - then perhaps it isn’t?
Some comedians and those aspiring to shining wittery[vii]
(in the office, in the workplace including Downing Street and other great
offices, or at home) might have to work that bit harder to make us laugh - but
how much kinder and tolerant and safe might we all be, especially those for
whom their experiences are no joke and not funny?
©‽istis
NB: further reflections and comments linked to this week’s theme
and past blog entries to be found on X/Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t
necessarily indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’:
@Pistis_wonders. X/Twitter ‘follows’ and respectful comment and dialogue
welcome...
[i] As
included in the High Wycombe panto.
Also: well played Aunty June in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiS6EteKcoY
(other versions are available)
[ii] Oh
the perils of the notion of nominative determinism; I’m not sure that I would
want to be driven home by you James, with or without the horses being spared! Mind
you, have you been listening to the UK’s Covid Inquiry coverage and the levels
of professionalism, courtesy, respect, and honour on display (not least on
screen and from extracts from ‘WhatsApp’ messages, many an HR department in
many an organisation would have been working overtime)…? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Offices_of_State#:~:text=They%20are%20the%20prime%20minister,offices%20excluding%20the%20prime%20minister
& https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/
[iii]
Other comedians and shows are available: https://www.pride.com/comedy/10-comedy-specials-to-watch-instead-of-dave-chappelle-or-ricky-gervais-because-were-done-with-them#toggle-gdpr
[iv]
For a discussion you might like to look at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba7tY6AJYuI
(PS: for what it’s worth, I’m with Paula Rhone-Adrien)
[v] A
question considered in a blog from February last year: https://pistisrec.blogspot.com/2023/02/pistis-ponders-just-because-you-could.html
[vi]
Another ‘politician’s apology’ perhaps goes something along the lines of: ‘I’m
sorry if anyone was offended by what I said…
that was not my intention…’ with the ‘my remarks were taken out of
context’ option also available to be deployed perhaps by the more aggrieved
(e.g: those who had actually resigned or had been stood down).
[vii]
Now that might make the basis of a good panto song?
