Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
College-aged Narcissism, Distilled
For those of you who missed Jerry Seinfeld’s recent comments about the state of comedy, Seinfeld remarked that the politically correct atmosphere on most college campuses dissuades top comedians from even playing them. This is a view he shares with other major stand-up stars, including Chris Rock. Specifically, Seinfeld says that today’s young people throw around words like “racism” for the sake of saying them, without even understanding fully what those concepts mean. He even uses his own daughter as an example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP769IdU_YE
A seemingly inevitable HuffPo commentary by Anthony Berteaux, a San Diego State student, provided some mildly terrifying insight into the contemporary collegiate mind, coupled with an inadvertent confirmation of Seinfeld’s thesis. Berteaux wrote an “open letter” to Seinfeld from the perspective of an admittedly “politically correct” college student. The author uses the second person (always a red flag in the realm of persuasive writing) to lecture Seinfeld — a man who has made hundreds of millions of dollars on his comedic talents — on the role of comedy today.
Near the beginning of the piece, Berteaux writes “As a college student that [sic] loves and appreciates offensive, provocative comedy, I’m disheartened by these comments.”
It never ceases to amaze me how those who struggle to appreciate certain types of humor feel an almost uncontrollable need to establish their comedic bona fides at the outset. This usually arrives in the form of a proclamation that “I have a great sense of humor, but…” or “I love a good joke as much as anyone, but…” Berteaux has a nice tweak on the theme, but the impact is the same.
We begin to get a true sense of the author’s point of view when he says:
It isn’t so much that college students are too politically correct (whatever your definition of that concept is), it’s that comedy in our progressive society today can no longer afford to be crass, or provocative for the sake of being offensive. Sexist humor and racist humor can no longer exist in comedy because these concepts are based on archaic ideals that have perpetrated injustice against minorities in the past.
Emphasis mine. You see, dear reader, we live in a “progressive society” now, and comedy must bend to those sensibilities. Perhaps the author can provide some additional clarity:
Provocative humor, such as ones [sic] dealing with topics of race and gender politics, can be crass and vulgar, but underlying it must be a context that spurs social dialogue about these respective issues. There needs to be a message, a central truth behind comedy for it to work as humor.
Note that the “message” behind a particular comedic work and “truth” are used interchangeably, here. That’s important. More on that in a moment.
Berteaux goes on to cite Amy Schumer as a comic who can be “crass and vulgar,” while also remaining palatable to college students. This is because her message is one that is agreeable to the aforementioned progressive society. To wit:
Underlying the joke of [Schumer’s Football Town Lights sketch], of course, is the horrifying truth of rape culture existent in high school football, and an even more horrifying reality of the parents attempting to justify it. Earlier this year, we heard of a horrifying case of a gang rape committed by five Florida high school football players and realized the underlying culture of violence and male domination that inhabits high school football.
You know he means what he says because he said “horrifying” three times! The essence is that Schumer doesn’t run afoul of the sensibilities of college kids because she has a message with which the author agrees.
He goes on to point to other examples, including Louis C.K.’s very funny bit about how it’s objectively better to be white. Berteaux says, “Louis C.K. constructs another valuable dialogue about white male privilege, and the historic injustices that this system has created.”
Berteaux also pulls part of a Todd Barry quote in which Barry said: “But make sure you’re [offending] the right group. Because, I’m sure George Carlin, most of the time, was offending the right people.” He then concludes, strangely, by imploring Seinfeld to come to a college campus and deliver a set that is offensive.
Berteaux’s premise seems to be that being offensive is fine, so long as the comedy is only offensive to those who don’t share the worldview of this glorious “progressive society.” Comedy has to offend the correct group. Comedy has to speak to an underlying “truth” and impart a specific message that advances the right dialogue. Otherwise, it’s unacceptable.
In other words: Feel free to be offensive, as long as you don’t offend people who agree with me. This is like Henry Ford, telling customers that they can have their Model T painted any color they like, so long as they choose black.
Thus, Seinfeld has his point proven for him.
What the author seems to miss is that Seinfeld is not at all what any sane person would call an “offensive” stand-up comic. He is hardly “crass” or “provocative.” His wildly-successful career is built upon a foundation of the expert delivery of everyday, commonplace observational humor. Many of his most successful bits revolve around things like cookies, winning a silver medal, or post office wanted posters, or Neil Armstrong’s toothbrush. Yet, even he feels like playing college campuses probably isn’t worth the trouble now.
Why? Because he also has a few jokes like, “What’s the handicapped parking situation at the Special Olympics?”
To most people, that’s just another humorous observation in question form. On a college campus in 2015? Who can say? What we see in this HuffPo piece is that there is an ideologically-connected test for any comedy (or, let’s face it, any speech) that might offend the “wrong” people on campus.
Rather than suffer the irritation of deciding whether his jokes will satisfy Berteaux’s cultural criteria, Seinfeld chooses to keep his dignity and avoid audiences who come prepared with ready-made grievances and half-written change.org petitions.
My own view is that comedy — and college, for that matter — is supposed to be about irreverence. Make fun of everything. Offend everyone (or no one)! Be provocative (or don’t)! It’s up to you. Just don’t buy into the intolerably narcissistic and childish notion: “Comedians may only be provocative if they don’t provoke me.”
That is a fantasy that could spawn only in a magical land where speech codes and trigger warnings and safe spaces protect alleged adults from any idea they might find unsavory.
Published in Culture, Education, Entertainment
The irony is that Seinfeld is one of the least offensive comics working today. He’s pretty much the Bob Newhart of the early 21st Century.
They wouldn’t like Newhart either: too old, too white, too male.
…and way too middle-class. He was an accountant for cryin’ out loud!
It seems to me that this guy doesn’t like the truths that cause some jokes to be funny.
The latest episode of Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee (Steve Harvey’s the guest) goes even further into this:
http://comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com/steve-harvey-steve-harvey-always-do-the-banana-joke-first
Wow!
Good post, Tom.
Mel Brooks wouldn’t make it in today’s PC-addled world.
“…audiences filled with folks who have come prepared with ready-made grievances and half-written change.org petitions in the drafts folder on their laptops.”
This is what gripes me. For a group that flaunts their mantra of COEXIST on their bumper stickers, they sure don’t allow anybody else’s actions/words/thoughts to be seen/heard/believed.
No, it needs to be funny. That’s all. It doesn’t need a “message”, or “truth”. It needs to be funny.
Mel Brooks hasn’t “made it” since Spaceballs.
Did you see Dracula: Dead and Loving It?!
Seinfeld has said, “if I can’t make a topic funny, I will not talk about it.”
That’s how he stays out of political trouble.
Thanks very much!
This is exactly right, on both counts.
First, the only test I have for comedy is, “Is it funny?” Too often in today’s world, people on the Left can’t distinguish between that question and “Do I agree with the comedian’s politics / point-of-view?” These aren’t the same thing, and it’s really sad that some folks can’t distinguish.
Secondly, on Seinfeld – this is what makes the whole commentary so bizarre. Seinfeld probably has the highest “success to offensiveness” ratio in comedy history (with the possible exception of Bob Newhart, as noted above). If Seinfeld is worried about college campuses, that should be a huge red flag about the atmosphere there.
To summarize, how about a few possible headlines:
“College twit demonstrates how to be mindlessly politically correct as a way to deny that he is politically correct.”
“Mush-minded college ‘progressive’ demonstrates everything that is wrong with political correctness.”
Perhaps as a sub-heading: “The Left-wing demagoguery is so bad on campus today that student’s today don’t even understand that their mindless nonsense is precisely what the term ‘political correctness’ was coined to describe.”
I am reminded of the old Russian-American joke.
The American explains that Americans have freedom, so, for example, he is perfectly free to criticize the President.
The Russian says: “In Russia, is same thing. We are perfectly free to criticize your President.”
He needs to show his math on the affordability issue. I sure hope it wasn’t the same math that was behind the “Affordable Care Act.”
He did quite well with the relaunch of The Producers on Broadway, parlaying that into a film remake (although to my mind the remake was overwrought and not nearly as punchy as the original).
These two sentences illustrate that young Betreaux has a somewhat different definitiosn of learning and laughter than I do:
Really? I thought the job of a learner was to acquire content knowledge and then demonstrate understanding…silly me.
I am looking to laugh, to find things funny, to have an enjoyable time in the context of comedy. silly me.
First, I don’t think Seinfeld is worried about offending on college campuses. Or the other guys. He’s worried about not getting laughs. Most college kids are normal people but in that atmosphere they will stifle their laughter because they are afraid.
Second, the reason Carlin flies above all other comedians is that he could even make you laugh at things you didn’t want to laugh at. He could say the most vile and disgusting things that offend every rational cell in your brain and still you’d be laughing.
Hey kid, get on stage and try this sometime. It’s unbelievable what these guys do.
I like Megyn Kelly’s phrase for the current generation of those traumatized by speech they cannot agree with: Cupcakes. Many of these cupcakes never heard the word no used in a meaningful way by their parents or teachers but they certainly use the word no when it comes to speech, and they use it every chance they get. Tantrums might be cute when dealing with a two-year old, tantrums from college students that still have no real life experience are tiresome.
I prefer “buttercup”, as in “Suck it up, buttercup”.
Lines like this are always helpful in flagging early that a writer won’t be able to make a coherent argument.
Isn’t the definition of “too politically correct” central to the argument over whether or not college students are it?
Exactly. So if the college kids are so sensitive that they can’t handle HIM…. There’s clearly problems.
I was going to suggest Jack Benny, but the sight of Rochester would probably cause their hair to burst into flames.
Mel Brooks’ movies would be a hate crime the way things are going.
I’m tired of trying to keep up. It’s better to get ahead of the game and make everyone ELSE try to keep up. Surely I can be allowed at least 15 minutes of moral superiority over everyone else. So here goes:
We need to quit using hetero-speciesist language that implies one species is any different from any other.
For example, there is an organization called PETA that has this slogan: “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any way.”
That’s hetero-speciesist. It implies that PETA members are different from other plants, microbes, and animals. Yet we know that differences between species are nothing more than a social construct. What’s needed is species equality, and we’re not going to get it when we talk in terms of we vs them.
(Please don’t tell me that somebody else has beat me to it.)
Brooks actually said on late night TV that he probably wouldn’t be allowed to make “Blazing Saddles” today.
Do you remember the show Roc? It was on Fox in the early 90s. In one episode the daughter was dating a kid that wouldn’t even eat vegetables because vegetables felt pain.
There was a bit in the movie “Notting Hill”, where a woman that Hugh Grant as dating was a Fruitarian.
Keziah: No thanks, I’m a fruitarian.
Max: I didn’t realize that.
William: And, ahm: what exactly is a fruitarian?
Keziah: We believe that fruits and vegetables have feeling so we think cooking is cruel. We only eat things that have actually fallen off a tree or bush – that are, in fact, dead already.
William: Right. Right. Interesting stuff. So, these carrots…
Keziah: Have been murdered, yes.
William: Murdered? Poor carrots. How beastly!