Comedy Ethics: Traditionally comedy

1. Think about how contentious issues of "political correctness" are, especially in the world of comedy. The line between what is acceptable and what is not is, of course, subjective––it depends on who tells the joke, who is the butt of the joke, the context of the joke, etc. There are probably some jokes you'd feel less comfortable telling your grandma, than, say, your best friend.
A really key takeaway in this debate is one that is oft overlooked––that theoretically anything can be joked about well. Tig Notaro jokes about her diagnosis of breast cancer; Sarah Silverman jokes about the silencing of rape victims; Louis CK jokes about abortion––all of these are pretty taboo in comedy, but their deliveries are attentive to language, context, and audience. The "PC Police" aren't going to arrest anyone for a crappy joke, but to suggest that we as an audience are not allowed to react unless with laughter is missing the point––comedy thrives on reaction.
This is a nuanced issue, and saying "it's just a joke" is insufficient––it lacks critical thinking. You, as a scholar, have the responsibility to listen and think and learn, even while you are laughing. And at the very least, a requirement of this class is that you seek out the substance of jokes (or your papers would be reeeeally short, wouldn't they?).
Comedy has long been used as a tool of social criticism––think Shakespeare, Swift's Modest Proposal, Jane Austen, etc. Shows like The Daily Show have been implementing satire as social criticism for years. Comedians who deal in taboo do so because they want to deal in taboo––because edginess gains more traction in the comedy world. Successful comedians are hyper-aware of the power of language and divisive issues. For example, Daniel Tosh is well aware of the potential for offense in his jokes. He has a carefully crafted stage persona that is dripping with irony. He makes sexist jokes under the guise of irony––there is an implicit understanding that the jokes are things you are not supposed to say, that only a "real" sexist would say, and that is what gives the joke traction. (There is an entirely different discussion on "ironic sexism" and perpetuating sexist assumptions via comedy...more on that later).
What is considered shocking today is vastly different than 50 years ago. Compare a sitcom today with one from the 1960s and you will find huge shifts in how family, work, sex, etc. are portrayed. This seems to counter the idea that we as a culture are growing more sensitive. Instead, are we becoming more aware of and vocal about how power works in our culture?
2. With all of this in mind, do some internet exploring. Watch some new (to you) comedy. Think about craft, taboo, persona, audience, etc.
3. Write a 150-200 word response to a piece of comedy, using these articles as a lens. Your goal is not to find "proof," but to try to view comedy from these perspectives, as opposed to the more mainstream perspective that comedy is trivial. Maybe something you found challenges the claims in one of the articles––good! Talk about that. This assignment is exploratory in nature.
The expectations:
150-200 words
identify and discuss a particular piece of comedy
attempt to address the comedy using this discussion as a lens
maintain critical thought and academic tone, though this is by no means a formal writing assignment