Tuesday, January 18

The ethics of humor

On November 29, humorist David Suárez was tried in the Provincial Court of Madrid for “just a joke“(or that’s how the networks are treating it in general), and I’m honest, to me the argument of” it’s just a joke “,” it’s just humor “,” it was bromiiiiii “has me fed up, what about humor? Is it an underworld of worthless creation that neither pricks nor cuts? If “it’s bromiiii”, it can’t hurt? If it was a joke, it wouldn’t bias or be used as a throwing arrow towards anyone? If I write “Mein Kampf “Well look, yes, hate crime … but jokes, right? 🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️. As an author whose main communication tool is humor, I don’t think humor is below the rest of literary creations, audiovisual or artistic coercion … etc., it also has its weight, its relevance, the art of creating it … and perhaps also its crimes?

Let’s look at this specific case: David Suárez has not been summoned in the Provincial Court for comic evil or offending, but for a hate crime, which according to the Ministry of the Interior, is:

(A) Any criminal offense, including offenses against people or property, where the victim, the location or the target of the offense is chosen for their, real or perceived, connection, sympathy, affiliation, support or membership of a group such as those defined in part B;

(B) A group must be based on a common characteristic of its members, such as their real or perceptual race, national or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, intellectual or physical disability, sexual orientation or other similar factor. “(OSCE, 2003)

The prosecution maintains that the tweet / joke was humiliating and humiliating against a group, women with Down syndrome. And here we enter into a tailspin, that if it was just humor, a joke, that if he was exercising his profession and that now it is going to be that for offending we all go to jail. Penalties of the prosecution apart, of which I can not comment because they do not fall within my field, what I do think I can comment on is the responsibility of the trade as a humorist or creator of humorous content. From my personal point of view, I read the joke and yes, it sounds humiliating and humiliating to me.

Humor is not a being of light where we all collide in a world of rainbows and love, humor has its crumb: it has direction (preferably from the bottom up, otherwise it would be a bit of bullying), it also has political ideologies (¿ or is humor not influenced by social movements in the context?), it has context, and whether we believe it or not, it also influences our behavior (like many other types of content we consume), if highly relevant humorists make certain types of jokes racists or sexists that are applauded and spread among the people, will affect their behavior, for example: If a comedian of the stature of Dani Rovira made a tour of Spain with his new monologue “How ugly are the Chinese”, he would be normalizing and legitimizing these behaviors among the ordinary population And how would this affect? According to the pyramid of hate, a resource created by the Anti-defamation league to understand hate crimes, These jokes or jokes would be in the second step of the pyramid, in that of acts of prejudice just before the systematic discrimination (this pyramid is very funny, because if we continue to build the pyramid of hate, we end up in genocide, yupiiiii), that is to say We are building, willingly or unwillingly, the dehumanization of that group to which our joke is directed.

In short, humor also has ethics, or at least it should have it for humorists. The argument of “it was just a joke” to avoid the offense or perhaps the crime, was outdated long ago (long ago). Let us be responsible with our creations and reflect as creators, that we do not have to reach a judgment so that we stop to think about it, since we believe it or not, the humor we create builds or destroys in the context in which we are.