📝📝: Is it okay to joke about people with disabilities?

On 6/26 (Sun), I was fortunate to be involved in the program video of the PSTV theme night SHOW. This issue-oriented talk show is a channel I have been following, and we were talking about a slightly tricky topic that day:

Is it okay to joke about disabled people?

To my surprise, the citizens who participated in the program on that day were also disabled. More than half of them were optimistic about joking. Some even took the initiative to start the show with a joke. As for whether to joke about people with disabilities, the premise of this discussion should first clarify "who defines what a joke is?" That is, is the essence of a joke determined by the listener or the speaker?

If the joke is decided by the speaker, then the next question we need to answer is "under what circumstances can the speaker joke?" In the video of the day, some people think it depends on the relationship between the two people, others think that it depends on the relationship between the two people. Jokes should only be made after understanding the situation of the listener. Jimmy, who participated in the recording that day, was Julia's personal assistant. He himself often joked with Julia and even imitated her speech (Julia has a language barrier and has a serious stutter when speaking). Julia herself also readily accepts such interaction. Jimmy believes:

"I do make jokes about Julia a lot, but I also make sure she 's capable of fighting back too."

These partnerships, which seem to be premised on understanding, may seem like joking moral yardsticks; however, the categories of these considerations involve processes that require consensus with others (the listeners), not just the speaker. Whether it is to establish a relationship between two people or to understand the bottom line of acceptance by others, it is necessary to communicate and collaborate with others to achieve consensus; that is, even if the benchmark of a joke lies in the speaker, it also includes the process of understanding others.

Furthermore, handing over control of the joke to the speaker is itself extremely dangerous. In daily situations or comedy specials, there are many dilemmas of "I thought you could accept this joke", and such a vague trust relationship with others is often the fuse of disputes and inflammation. Even from a caring point of view, as Jimmy's stance "makes sure others can fight back, jokes" is very likely to lead to extreme situations where jokes are rampant, as long as the speaker can ensure that others (listeners) can fight back, it seems that Vaguely rationalize the frequency and strength of the speaker's jokes; however, such thinking ignores the fact that the counterattack of the two (handicapped/non-handicapped) cannot achieve the same attack effect in behavior.

╴

Since letting the speaker dominate the joke hides so many potentially uncontrollable factors, can it really reconcile the positions of both parties by handing over the control of the joke to the listener? This decision, which seems to be for the sake of the listener, actually leads us to an even bigger dilemma:

If the dominance of jokes lies not in ourselves but in others, can we still have jokes?

How can we attribute responsibility for offending jokes if we can't even be sure that the jokes were made?

The moral dilemma that creates a moral dilemma is that the definition of a joke is still a blurred line , and we can't articulate what a joke is, and we can't easily assign dominance to any one party.

The essence of a joke is not as clear-cut as everyday speech and behavior. The so-called "offensive" of the speaker can be presented in a joking way, or revealed one by one in the form of crosstalk shaking. However, such a vague expression falls on the listener. But it can cause physical harm. The two sides of the conversation covered in jokes maximize the difficulty of interpreting the " problem of others mind ". The listener cannot determine whether the speaker intends to offend others with this joke, and the speaker also It is impossible to confirm the psychological feelings of the listener through the immediate reaction of the listener.

Therefore, even if the control of the joke is handed over to the listener, it still creates a gap of understanding between the two parties; worse, even the joke may not be produced smoothly.