Here’s Bill Maher on a recent “Real Time” show discussing the current unacceptability of certain brands of humor. (Click on screenshot to see Maher’s take; and is that really Ann Coulter as his special guest?)

Humor that deals with issues of sex, race, and the like is a touchy business. For example, unlike Maher I’m not keen on the joke that Clint Eastwood makes at the beginning, for it seems to have no point beyond saying that Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner is “acting.”

But on the other hand provocative humor that deals with sex and race, without being offensively sexist and racist, has been made by people like George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, Chris Rock, and Joan Rivers. Don’t forget the common trope of female comedians about how sex-obsessed men are—along with our other unpleasant traits—humor that has a basis in reality (yes, the sexes differ in behavior), but, as Maher notes, doesn’t apply to every member of the class. Is that offensive? Maybe to some people, but I don’t think we should ban it. Calling attention to those differences can be both funny and thought-provoking. And of course the humor of Lenny Bruce (and Chris Rock), considered highly offensive by many, is drawing humor from underlying realities, not denigrating classes of people. Bruce’s humor was sometimes meant to mock racism by using racist words (see this famous bit). Chris Rock highlights cultural differences between blacks and whites, which have a basis in reality (see this video), and his take is often not only hilarious, but far from being racist. And, for crying out loud, there’s Sarah Silverman, who regularly does bits that could be seen as offensive. (Much of it makes fun of Jews, although that’s okay, I guess, because Silverman is Jewish.) This bit of hers, for example, would be widely decried as “ageism,” but I don’t find it offensive, for in truth we’re all going to die sooner than we’d like.

In other words, I have no objection to humor about race, sex, age, etc. unless its main aim is simply to denigrate others. But if even mentioning such topics is taboo, or “triggering,” then we’re truly lost, for these are important issues that warrant discussion, and humor is part of that discussion.

Maher highlights a letter from an offended student in HuffPo, “An open letter to Jerry Seinfeld from a ‘politically correct’ college student.” It’s by Anthony Berteaux, a student at San Diego State University, and you might want to read it to see how many college students feel about words that offend them.

Berteaux’s letter actually seems a bit confused. The main point seems to be that comedians like Seinfeld shouldn’t be offensive by mocking minorities (did Seinfeld ever do that?), but should also have a political line that is progressive and supportive of minorities, and Berteaux is apparently the arbiter of what’s permitted and what’s not:

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.

Provocative humor, such as ones 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.

Take Amy Schumer for example. . .

Berteaux then gives an example of “progressive” humor by Amy Schumer, but if you watch Maher’s piece, you can see that she’s also made at least one joke that, by Berteaux’s lights, is grossly offensive. Did she get called out for that? I don’t think so, nor should she have been.

According to Berteaux, then, there is a “politically correct” form of comedy: comedians need to toe a particular line, which I guess is the left-wing one:

While it’s not the sole role of comics to be social commentators on every issue through their comedy, I believe there is a responsibility, especially when a well-known comic is talking about sensitive topics like race and gender politics, to have an underlying message to be said.

This doesn’t mean that the funny aspect of the bit has to be compromised for the sake of social commentary. As countless comedians have proven before, it’s very possible to have a message and be hilarious at the same time.

Of course it means the “funny aspect” has to be compromised for the sake of social commentary! What Berteaux is saying here is that you can be funny, but only in a certain socially correct way. The “message” has to be one of which Berteaux approves. And that, of course, is the whole problem of free speech: who is to judge what is offensive and what is not?

But at the end of his piece, Berteaux completely undercuts his own thesis. First he argues that comedians can be offensive, but “offensive within the right context.” What the bloody hell does that mean? It really means that comedians shouldn’t be offensive, or rather, they can say strong stuff, but it can’t bruise the feelings of the audience.  He then goes on:

So, yes, Mr. Seinfeld, we college students are politically correct. We will call out sexism and racism if we hear it. But if you’re going to come to my college and perform in front of me, be prepared to write up a set that doesn’t just offend me, but has something to say.

There’s no reason you can’t do what other comics are doing. You have an amazing legacy, both in stand-up and on television, because you do your job well.

But, there’s a generation in college right now that hasn’t seen your comedy, and there’s a demographic that yearns for laughter. College students today are looking to be provoked, to be offended by comedy, and to think about these issues within the context of comedy.

So please, take the first step and come to a college campus with a set that will make us laugh.

Offend the fuck out of college students. Provoke the fuck out of me. We’ll thank you for it later.

In other words, offend me but don’t offend me. If you have “something to say,” well, it should be something that I already approve of.

And how can you be “provoked” unless there’s a possibility of being offended? This whole ending makes no sense, and means that the author either doesn’t know what he’s saying or doesn’t know the meaning of the word “provoked.”

Regardless, Maher is right about Bertreaux’s letter, which suggests that comedy be censored and that the Thought Police should determine which comedy is acceptable and which is not.

Weigh in below with your opinion.

h/t: Diana Macpherson