Comedy has influenced the way I view language and literacy. I grew up watching standup comics like Dave Chappelle, Russell Peters, Gabriel Iglesias (Fluffy), Chris Rock, and Kevin Hart. Back then, comedians were able to say virtually anything which expanded their creative horizons. My favorite jokes were from Dave Chappelle, as he is a phenomenal storyteller. The way he gives small details, connecting them bit by bit, and then delivers the best punchline. Growing up, comedy was my gateway to learning the English language after I had immigrated from Bangladesh. The way comedians phrase their punchlines and the concepts of structuring the jokes solidified my understanding of English. It also gave me confidence because the way I spoke was not grammatically correct but the comedians I was watching on TV spoke in a weird manner as well. Some of my favorite jokes were impressions of the Indian accent.
This essay discusses the controversy surrounding comedy and the limits that some people believe should be placed on comedians. The essay raises the question of whether comedians deserve to be punished or “cancelled” for making jokes that some people find offensive or inappropriate. The essay also touches on the issue of dark humor and whether there are certain subjects that should not be joked about. The essay argues that comedy should not be bound by morals or limits, as it is a form of free speech and entertainment, and that comedians should be able to express their unique perspectives without fear of punishment. The essay cites examples of comedians who have faced backlash for their material, including Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, Kevin Hart, and Hasan Minhaj.
This essay also argues that comedians should not be restricted in what they say or face backlash for their jokes, even if some people take them personally. The essay cites examples of comedians who faced backlash or physical harm for their material and suggests that these reactions limit the creativity of comedians and undermine their freedom of speech. The essay asserts that comedy is purely for entertainment and should not be bound by morals or used for propaganda, and that the cancellation of shows like Hasan Minhaj’s “Patriot Act” is an act of suppression of freedom of speech. Overall, the essay suggests that comedy should be received for entertainment and as a way to provide unique perspectives on society.
Observing Rhetorical Strategies in Texts
Part 1
Logos
In June Jordan’s “Nobody Mean More to Me Than You And the Future Life of Willie Jordan”, she makes the argument that Black English exists as its own English. It should be valued and part of one’s identity. Black English should not be demeaned or viewed as inferior to any other English spoken. A strategy that Jordan utilizes to convey her point of view is the data on how many types of the English language exists and is spoken. Jordan points out “What we casually call “English,” less and less defers to England and its “gentlemen.” “English” is no longer a specific matter of geography or an element of class privilege; more than thirty-three countries use this tool as a means of “intranational communication.”2 Countries as disparate as Zimbabwe and Malaysia, or Israel and Uganda, use it as their non-native currency of convenience. Obviously, this tool, this “English,” cannot function inside thirty-three discrete societies on the basis of rules and values absolutely determined somewhere else, in a thirty-fourth other country, for example.” (Jordan). Jordan describes the copious versions of English that exists and therefore, black English should also be part of that. Logically speaking, this validates AAV as an English language.
What I found interesting About this rhetorical strategy is that it cannot be refuted. The existence of English in other countries was due to colonization. If the “American” English is said to be proper, what does it make the original “British” English? This would make the argument against it be hypocritical. This strategy directly counters the argument against it, being perceived as inferior and improper. Whilst proving its own argument.
Pathos
Another strategy that Jordan applies to advance her argument is her portrayal of the emotions and the events that had occurred. When Jordan’s students were presented with an award-winning book “the color purple” by Alice Walker, they were shocked by seeing literature that was written like how they spoke. They said “Why she have them talk so funny. It don’t sound right.” “Another student lifted his head: “It don’t look right, neither. I couldn’t hardly read it.” The students did not empathize or relate to the text but instead had a poor view on the English that was presented.
This rhetorical strategy was interesting because the students spoke like the English that was written but instead of being proud, they criticized the way it was written. This rhetorical strategy emphasizes the societal view of black English, how it is negatively seen by all parties.
Ethos
June Jordan is an educator. She teaches students English. She had attended college and is qualified to teach English. Yet, she chooses to teach her students about AAV and black English. She, a master of English, dictates that black English is significant to one’s identity and should not be undermined and viewed as lesser than the “proper” English. Also, the students ridiculing “the color purple”, which was an award-winning book, famous for its portrayal of the black language.
This rhetorical strategy is interesting because even when people are “qualified” to speak on a topic, they can still be undermined because of what they argue for. Even the award-winning book is ridiculed for its portrayal on black English in literature.
Part 2
What are the limits of comedy?
In the last few years, there has been uproar about many controversial takes on a certain topic. Comedy is no exception. Comedians have been restricted in what they can say and cannot say in fear of being cancelled. Comedy is subjective so it should be no surprise that some people take the jokes personally whilst others laugh and enjoy the moment. However, does this mean comedians deserve the backfire for what is harmless and not ill intended?
Recently, at the famous Oscars event, a well renowned and established comedian, Chris Rock was physically assaulted. He had made a joke about famous actor Will Smith’s spouse. Smith then walked up onto the stage and slapped him. This moment has left a precedent that it is okay to reprimand/harm comedians when they “get out of line”. Should comedians be subject to this treatment?
Another famous comedian, Dave Chappelle, made some jokes about his transgender friend and so the LGBTQ community tried to cancel him. Dave Chappelle has received permission from his friend that it was not offensive to them. However, it didn’t matter, as they still plummeted his ratings on the special and protested. Despite this, Chappelle came out on top because the material was funny to the general public. This brings up the question of whether comedians can get away with certain things if they are funny.
This leads to the questionability of dark humor. How soon is too soon? What can’t be joked about? Comedians shouldn’t be bound by morals in their material as it is purely used for entertainment, not propaganda.
All these questions should not be considered when consuming comedy because it limits the comedian’s creativity. If every comedian was bound to the same rules, there is only so much they could say. Famous comedian Kevin Hart no longer does material that can be considered edgy or something along those lines strictly because he fears being cancelled. Comedy shouldn’t have limits; it is also a form of free speech and press. Hasan Minhaj, a comic who had a Netflix show “Patriot Act” had his show cancelled after he had made jokes about Saudi Arabia and large corporations. This was an act to suppress his freedom of speech. Comedy is to be received for entertainment and provides unique perspectives to society.
Part 3
I decided to portray my arguments through the use of the rhetorical strategies logos, ethos, and pathos.
I utilized logos when speaking about the state of comedian’s careers and their ability to express their creativity. In Dave Chapelle’s case, he is often criticized and labeled with titles like “misogynist”, “homophobic”, and “transphobic”. Another issue that is prevalent is the people’s ability to call out comedians for their jokes, whether it be heckling or physical assault. Chris Rock was assaulted on live television in one of the widely televised events in the world, further enhancing the idea of comedy should face consequences. These anecdotes portray the scrutiny comics face when doing comedy. This appeals to the audience’s logos.
One thing Americans can never negotiate is the 1st amendment, the freedom of speech. This is the case because even hate speech cannot be censored and is not a punishable offense. So why should comedy, which is to be taken in a lighthearted and satirical matter, be held to the same standard. Freedom of speech is an unalienable right and to censor it is dehumanizing. Comedy can also be an outlet for press as comedians like Bill Burr and Dave Chappelle, and Hasan Minhaj do sets on controversial topics including politics. Hasan Minhaj, who had his show cancelled for criticizing corporations and political authorities, was the victim of the suppression of free speech. This is a dangerous and terrifying precedent that is being set, as though it is a dystopia. These aspects appeal to the readers ethos and pathos.
Another strategy I have utilized is the use of satire and multimedia to portray the state of comedy. The image depicts the consequences of these cancellations. Offending people nowadays have more severe consequences, as they may lose their jobs and livelihood due to offending a group of people. Although satire usually is ironic, this satire has truth in it.
