"It's Just a Joke": When "Humor" Becomes a Weaponized Tool of Extremism

[Debater Slayer]

An excellent article on the Guardian from almost six years ago about how some of the most fringe and extremist individuals on the so-called "alt-right" masquerade their rhetoric and propaganda in the form of "humor," allowing them to disseminate their ideology without displaying overt commitment to socially unacceptable views:

Last week, the Data & Society Institute released a report on the online disinformation and manipulation that is increasingly shaping US politics. The report focused on the way in which far-right actors “spread white supremacist thought, Islamophobia, and misogyny through irony and knowledge of internet culture”.

One the report’s authors, Dr Alice Marwick, says that fascist tropes first merged with irony in the murkier corners of the internet before being adopted by the “alt-right” as a tool. For the new far-right movement, “irony has a strategic function. It allows people to disclaim a real commitment to far-right ideas while still espousing them.”

Marwick says that from the early 2000s, on message boards like 4chan, calculatedly offensive language and imagery have been used to “provoke strong reactions in outsiders”. Calling all users “****”, or creating memes using gross racial stereotypes, “serves a gate-keeping function, in that it keeps people out of these spaces, many of which are very easy to access”.

Hiding in plain sight: how the 'alt-right' is weaponizing irony to spread fascism

A paper published on the European Commission's website puts forth a similar argument:

Humour has become a central weapon of extremist movements to subvert open societies and to lower the threshold towards violence. Especially within the context of a recent wave of far-right terrorist attacks, we witness “playful” ways in communicating racist ideologies. As far-right extremists strategically merge with online cultures, their approach changes fundamentally. This trend has been especially facilitated by the so-called alt-right and has spread globally.

This predominantly online movement set new standards to rebrand extremist positions in an ironic guise, blurring the lines between mischief and potentially radicalising messaging. The result is a nihilistic form of humour that is directed against ethnic and sexual minorities and deemed to inspire violent fantasies — and eventually action. This paper scrutinises how humour functions as a potential factor in terms of influencing far-right extremist violence. In doing so, we trace the strategic dissemination of far-right narratives and discuss how extremists conceal their misanthropic messages in order to deny ill intention or purposeful harm.

Far-right extremists’ use of humour, 2021

I have long held the opinion that "it's just a joke" should not be a carte blanche to say whatever one wants without consideration for the potential harms and consequences. This is especially true for public figures who, inadvertently or not, sometimes play right into the hands of extremists by propagating harmful stereotypes in the form of "comedy."

For instance, last year, Breitbart had a positive article about Ricky Gervais' jokes targeting trans people in one of his specials, which the outlet seemed to consider to be genuine political messaging or social commentary (warning per Rule 5: language in the link).

What are your thoughts? Could ostensible "humor" be used to advance harmful ideologies, or are the above examples just the result of extremists co-opting well-meaning humor and misusing it?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think that if a person claims they're joking, it should be taken into consideration and evaluated, but that "I was joking" shouldn't be used as a cop-out.

 

[exchemist]

An excellent article on the Guardian from almost six years ago about how some of the most fringe and extremist individuals on the so-called "alt-right" masquerade their rhetoric and propaganda in the form of "humor," allowing them to disseminate their ideology without displaying overt commitment to socially unacceptable views:



Hiding in plain sight: how the 'alt-right' is weaponizing irony to spread fascism

A paper published on the European Commission's website puts forth a similar argument:



Far-right extremists’ use of humour, 2021

I have long held the opinion that "it's just a joke" should not be a carte blanche to say whatever one wants without consideration for the potential harms and consequences. This is especially true for public figures who, inadvertently or not, sometimes play right into the hands of extremists by propagating harmful stereotypes in the form of "comedy." For instance, last year, Breitbart had a positive article about Ricky Gervais' jokes targeting trans people in one of his specials (warning per Rule 5: language in the link).

What are your thoughts? Could ostensible "humor" be used to advance harmful ideologies, or are the above examples just the result of extremists co-opting well-meaning humor and misusing it?

Yes I've seen this quite a bit, even on this forum. One sees people advancing extreme or outlandish views and then, if there is sufficient pushback, claiming retrospectively, that they were just joking all along.

I call this the Schrödinger cop-out, or Schrödinger defence. You maintain ambiguity, so it is both serious and a joke until the responses can be gauged...... and only then do you commit to which of the two it was.

Bozo, our former prime minister, has done this on occasion. And, if I'm not mistaken, so has Trump. It's a low-risk way to push the boundaries of acceptable ideas and modes of speech into more and more shocking or degrading directions.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes I've seen this quite a bit, even on this forum. One sees people advancing extreme or outlandish views and then, if there is sufficient pushback, claiming retrospectively, that they were just joking all along.

I call this the Schrödinger cop-out, or Schrödinger defence. You maintain ambiguity, so it is both serious and a joke until the responses can be gauged...... and only then do you commit to which of the two it was.

Sometimes it is especially blatant. I have seen people explicitly support homophobic and misogynistic beliefs and then make "jokes" that are—you guessed it—both homophobic and sexist. When called out on this, a lot of them just respond with "you need a sense of humor!" or "it's just a joke!"

I think it's obvious enough that something is not merely a joke and should not be accepted without pushback when the person saying it has extremist and harmful beliefs that match the "jokes" they're telling.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Bozo, our former prime minister, has done this on occasion. And, if I'm not mistaken, so has Trump. It's a low-risk way to push the boundaries of acceptable ideas and modes of speech into more and more shocking or degrading directions.

Yes, I do think that when high-profile figures use this cop-out, they contribute to a climate where harmful beliefs are more normalized, and the report cited in the article seems to support this.

This is why I firmly support a lot of the criticism that comedians like Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais have received for using harmful and ideologically charged stereotypes in their material in a way that wasn't clearly disapproving or satirizing of said stereotypes. At that point it's not mere humor; it's irresponsible rhetoric that can feed into extremist ideology whether intentionally or not.

 

[exchemist]

Sometimes it is especially blatant. I have seen people explicitly support homophobic and misogynistic beliefs and then make "jokes" that are—you guessed it—both homophobic and sexist. When called out on this, a lot of them just respond with "you need a sense of humor!" or "it's just a joke!"

I think it's obvious enough that something is not merely a joke and should not be accepted without pushback when the person saying it has extremist and harmful beliefs that match the "jokes" they're telling.

Yes, these are simply jokes in bad taste. There are plenty of those around. There were numerous jokes circulating when I was at school in the 1960s that by today's standards were racist or homophobic. If you told them now, people would be shocked at your bad taste. They certainly would not find them funny.

So yes I agree: claiming something is a joke does not get you a free pass.

 

[Twilight Hue]

An excellent article on the Guardian from almost six years ago about how some of the most fringe and extremist individuals on the so-called "alt-right" masquerade their rhetoric and propaganda in the form of "humor," allowing them to disseminate their ideology without displaying overt commitment to socially unacceptable views:



Hiding in plain sight: how the 'alt-right' is weaponizing irony to spread fascism

A paper published on the European Commission's website puts forth a similar argument:



Far-right extremists’ use of humour, 2021

I have long held the opinion that "it's just a joke" should not be a carte blanche to say whatever one wants without consideration for the potential harms and consequences. This is especially true for public figures who, inadvertently or not, sometimes play right into the hands of extremists by propagating harmful stereotypes in the form of "comedy."

For instance, last year, Breitbart had a positive article about Ricky Gervais' jokes targeting trans people in one of his specials, which the outlet seemed to consider to be genuine political messaging or social commentary (warning per Rule 5: language in the link).

What are your thoughts? Could ostensible "humor" be used to advance harmful ideologies, or are the above examples just the result of extremists co-opting well-meaning humor and misusing it?

Not my joke. Got ot off the net...


A fascist, liberal, and communist start arguing who’s got a better ideology
To settle their argument, they decide to see whose ideology can make a cat eat mustard.

Fascist takes a spoonful of mustard and forcefully shoves it down the cat’s throat.

Liberal puts mustard between two pieces of tasty meat and thus tricks the cat into eating it.

Communist smears mustard below the cat’s tail. Poor animal starts meowing and tries to lick it off. Communist says: “Note, it’s eating mustard voluntarily and with a cheerful song!”

 

[Brickjectivity]

What are your thoughts? Could ostensible "humor" be used to advance harmful ideologies, or are the above examples just the result of extremists co-opting well-meaning humor and misusing it?

I have seen speeches by several comedians about the dangers of shutting down humor or else controlling what is allowed to be funny. They have persuaded me that this is not the way to protect freedom. This is actually a legal issue that is revisited from century to century. "Should we outlaw jokes about X?" I think being unable to joke about things is a crippling blow to defusing situations. I also understand that humor can be used for cruelty. I acknowledge that.

Ricky Gervais addressed transgenderism during his speech on this topic of whether jokes should be regulated by government or by media. It was his attempt to demonstrate that all topics should be allowed, however he never hated on transgenders as far as I could tell. I didn't see what Breitbart did with his language. I also watched his show The Office, and I thought his work was highly in favor of diversity. It showed interest in furthering diversity and in the understanding of others. He made fun of closed mindedness and fun of ignorance about homosexuals in the workplace. I can't imagine that the same writer would have any intention of slandering transgenders. Whatever Breitbart does might taint the original or spin it in some direction. That is what Breibart is about. I doubt Gervais has any evil intentions about it.

 

[SomeRandom]

An excellent article on the Guardian from almost six years ago about how some of the most fringe and extremist individuals on the so-called "alt-right" masquerade their rhetoric and propaganda in the form of "humor," allowing them to disseminate their ideology without displaying overt commitment to socially unacceptable views:



Hiding in plain sight: how the 'alt-right' is weaponizing irony to spread fascism

A paper published on the European Commission's website puts forth a similar argument:



Far-right extremists’ use of humour, 2021

I have long held the opinion that "it's just a joke" should not be a carte blanche to say whatever one wants without consideration for the potential harms and consequences. This is especially true for public figures who, inadvertently or not, sometimes play right into the hands of extremists by propagating harmful stereotypes in the form of "comedy."

For instance, last year, Breitbart had a positive article about Ricky Gervais' jokes targeting trans people in one of his specials, which the outlet seemed to consider to be genuine political messaging or social commentary (warning per Rule 5: language in the link).

What are your thoughts? Could ostensible "humor" be used to advance harmful ideologies, or are the above examples just the result of extremists co-opting well-meaning humor and misusing it?

Uhh I fell for that sort of rhetoric years ago and started defending very toxic ideas, sad to say. You probably know that already
You’ve seen some of my posts lol

“People can’t take a joke these days” was constantly hammered into me by folks that I followed online. Not at first, but slowly over time that became the battle cry. And that was used to push forward some awful ideas.

I think it turned me into a very toxic person overall.

I like dark humour, I like “insensitive” humour. Australian humour overall is very “insulting.”But what I guess I often overlooked was, such jokes require proper technique. You can’t just use them to bash folks, you have to come from a place of empathy and lambast awful stereotypes whilst doing it. I don’t have that talent.
And indeed off colour humour is a very convenient shield for folks looking to test the waters and see if their views are scrutinised or accepted. And is easily weaponised

 

[Debater Slayer]

I have seen speeches by several comedians about the dangers of shutting down humor or else controlling what is allowed to be funny. They have persuaded me that this is not the way to protect freedom. This is actually a legal issue that is revisited from century to century. "Should we outlaw jokes about X?" I think being unable to joke about things is a crippling blow to defusing situations. I also understand that humor can be used for cruelty. I acknowledge that.

To be clear, the subject is about the impact of certain forms of humor, not whether they should be outlawed. The latter is an entirely different topic.

 

[Heyo]

An excellent article on the Guardian from almost six years ago about how some of the most fringe and extremist individuals on the so-called "alt-right" masquerade their rhetoric and propaganda in the form of "humor," allowing them to disseminate their ideology without displaying overt commitment to socially unacceptable views:



Hiding in plain sight: how the 'alt-right' is weaponizing irony to spread fascism

A paper published on the European Commission's website puts forth a similar argument:



Far-right extremists’ use of humour, 2021

I have long held the opinion that "it's just a joke" should not be a carte blanche to say whatever one wants without consideration for the potential harms and consequences. This is especially true for public figures who, inadvertently or not, sometimes play right into the hands of extremists by propagating harmful stereotypes in the form of "comedy."

For instance, last year, Breitbart had a positive article about Ricky Gervais' jokes targeting trans people in one of his specials, which the outlet seemed to consider to be genuine political messaging or social commentary (warning per Rule 5: language in the link).

What are your thoughts? Could ostensible "humor" be used to advance harmful ideologies, or are the above examples just the result of extremists co-opting well-meaning humor and misusing it?

I smell another attack on Free Speech. Parody, sarcasm and irony have long been tools in the arsenal of comics and social critics, not always to the delight of the elite. And until recently it was consensus that they are protected by Free Speech, even when they are in bad taste. Most people defended the Jyllands Posten and Charlie Hebdo and now I have to defend the alt-right, a group I'd fight tooth and nails on other occasions. As long as their "humour" is in accord with existing laws, there is nothing we can do or should do except use our right of Free Speech to call them out.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This may be unrelated, but sometimes I think the far end of the Right needs better jokes, as well. Some of them really aren't funny to anyone other than that 4% of people, and yet they're often posted with the apparent assumption that they'll have wide appeal.

This is just my personal opinion, and with all due respect, and I welcome arguments to this post.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I smell another attack on Free Speech. Parody, sarcasm and irony have long been tools in the arsenal of comics and social critics, not always to the delight of the elite. And until recently it was consensus that they are protected by Free Speech, even when they are in bad taste. Most people defended the Jyllands Posten and Charlie Hebdo and now I have to defend the alt-right, a group I'd fight tooth and nails on other occasions. As long as their "humour" is in accord with existing laws, there is nothing we can do or should do except use our right of Free Speech to call them out.

To avoid iterating my previous post, I will quote it instead:

To be clear, the subject is about the impact of certain forms of humor, not whether they should be outlawed. The latter is an entirely different topic.

I also don't see how humor that employs stereotypes about groups that already face numerous social and legal challenges in a lot of countries (e.g., LGBT people) is against the "elite." If anything, a bunch of wealthy comedians cracking these types of jokes on some of the world's most popular platforms (such as Netflix) are quite arguably among the "elite" themselves. They risk nothing of note while sometimes acting like martyrs when they face criticism that doesn't remotely threaten their safety or ability to express themselves legally.

 

[Wildswanderer]

An excellent article on the Guardian from almost six years ago about how some of the most fringe and extremist individuals on the so-called "alt-right" masquerade their rhetoric and propaganda in the form of "humor," allowing them to disseminate their ideology without displaying overt commitment to socially unacceptable views:



Hiding in plain sight: how the 'alt-right' is weaponizing irony to spread fascism

A paper published on the European Commission's website puts forth a similar argument:



Far-right extremists’ use of humour, 2021

I have long held the opinion that "it's just a joke" should not be a carte blanche to say whatever one wants without consideration for the potential harms and consequences. This is especially true for public figures who, inadvertently or not, sometimes play right into the hands of extremists by propagating harmful stereotypes in the form of "comedy."

For instance, last year, Breitbart had a positive article about Ricky Gervais' jokes targeting trans people in one of his specials, which the outlet seemed to consider to be genuine political messaging or social commentary (warning per Rule 5: language in the link).

What are your thoughts? Could ostensible "humor" be used to advance harmful ideologies, or are the above examples just the result of extremists co-opting well-meaning humor and misusing it?

I think the vast majority of people have become far too sensitive, or perhaps, more likely, it's just a very small minority of people trying to control the rest.

 

[SomeRandom]

This may be unrelated, but sometimes I think the far end of the Right needs better jokes, as well. Some of them really aren't funny to anyone other than that 4% of people, and yet they're often posted with the apparent assumption that they'll have wide appeal.

This is just my personal opinion, and with all due respect, and I welcome arguments to this post.

Omg thank you!!

Even as I defended such poor taste jokes under the guise of “free speech” I thought they were dreadful jokes to begin with lol

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think the vast majority of people have become far too sensitive, or perhaps, more likely, it's just a very small minority of people trying to control the rest.

If you think people who criticize jokes that are homophobic, racist, etc., are a "very small minority," I suggest looking further into the larger social attitudes of Millennials and Gen Z.

No, we're not talking about a very small minority. I don't know whether critics of such humor are a minority in the US, but multiple trends strongly suggest that they're a considerable number of people even if not a majority. This is not the '70s or '80s anymore; try making a sexist or racist joke to a Millennial or Gen Z audience and observe the reactions.

Also, I would say those who ban or try to ban books they disapprove of are much more sensitive than people who criticize distasteful comedy sketches:

More Republican leaders try to ban books on race, LGBTQ issues

A Fast-Growing Network of Conservative Groups Is Fueling a Surge in Book Bans

 

[Wildswanderer]

If you think people who criticize jokes that are homophobic, racist, etc., are a "very small minority," I suggest looking further into the larger social attitudes of Millennials and Gen Z.

No, we're not talking about a very small minority. I don't know whether critics of such humor are a minority in the US, but multiple trends strongly suggest that they're a considerable number of people even if not a majority. This is not the '70s or '80s anymore; try making a sexist or racist joke to a Millennial or Gen Z audience and observe the reactions.

Lol, they laugh along with everybody else, at least at the jokes you probably think are racist or sexist. Don't you ever watch any comedy?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Lol, they laugh along with everybody else, at least at the jokes you probably think are racist or sexist. Don't you ever watch any comedy?

I wouldn't judge societal trends based on the reactions of people who specifically attend comedy shows. For example:

We’ve surpassed the point where we’d question whether a man clumsily dressed as a woman is funny. Jen Lavery, spokesperson for comedy club The Stand, says, “Previously a comedian may have been able to get away with a sexist comment; you can see audiences are now generally less comfortable with that type of rhetoric,” she says.

“People are also far more aware of trans issues now too, and certain jokes which may have got a laugh even a couple of years ago would now be viewed very differently.”

Also:

Lavery says she has seen a rise in the number of audience complaints from its comedy venues across Edinburgh over the past few years. Some of these, she says, are “knee-jerk reactions” to a specific word or phrase, without paying attention to the context, like when someone complained about a comedian making jokes about epilepsy, “despite the fact the act had made clear that they themselves were epileptic”.

Speaking to the BBC, journalist Jon Ronson said that audiences no longer pick up on the nuances of jokes: “Nobody seems to be able to tell the difference between a racist joke and a liberal joke that comments on racism.”

Is the snowflake generation really about to kill off comedy?

Make of that what you will, but things are clearly different now than they were in previous decades, and I doubt the changes will stop here.

 

[Heyo]

To be clear, the subject is about the impact of certain forms of humor, not whether they should be outlawed. The latter is an entirely different topic.

In the recent climate it isn't unreasonable to be paranoid. The next step after calling their jokes "dangerous" (which they are or can be), is calling for measures against them. But as long as they don't call for violence, there is reason to monitor them, to call them out and tell them that they aren't funny - but not to silence them.

 

[Secret Chief]

This may be unrelated, but sometimes I think the far end of the Right needs better jokes, as well. Some of them really aren't funny to anyone other than that 4% of people, and yet they're often posted with the apparent assumption that they'll have wide appeal.

This is just my personal opinion, and with all due respect, and I welcome arguments to this post.

No, this is a scientifically proven fact. "Rightwing comedian" is practically an oxymoron. Punching down isn't funny.