Natasha Leggero
By GENE HOWINGTON
Humor is a funny thing. It’s called a “sense of humor” because there is certainly an intuitive subjective component to humor. But the thing is . . . humor – like any form of writing – has rules. Even offensive humor, as a matter of free speech, should not be censored. Offense, like humor itself but even more so, relies upon a subjective component. You have no right not to be offended. In fact, an unwritten corollary to free speech is the rule “you are guaranteed to be offended at some point”.
Submitted for your consideration by way of illustration, the recent non-news story of comedian Natasha Leggero’s “offensive joke” on Last Call with Carson Daly.
Here’s the context. While on Daly’s late night NBC talk show, they were discussing the funniest stories of 2013. The subject of the much talked about SpaghettiOs’/Pearl Harbor tweet came up. For those of you who don’t recall, there was a bit of a dust up when someone at Cambell’s Soup, the owner of the brand, posted this tweet:
Was this original tweet subjectively offensive? I’m certain many thought it was by the backlash in the media that it generated. Was it objectively offensive? Let us examine some of the basics of joke construction to answer that question.
A joke relies upon the basic form of a setup and a punchline, one of which (although sometimes both) is based in an exaggeration. Like any sentence or paragraph, it consists of subjects, verbs and objects. It is a rule of joke construction that any subject can be funny. If someone tells you rape isn’t subject you can make fun of? Show them this NSFW example from The Master, George Carlin:
Although the topic goes much further than just the subject of humor, I think Mr. Carlin made the point. Any subject can be funny depending upon the exaggeration and, although Carlin does not touch upon this directly, the object. The object in a joke is often referred to as “the butt of the joke” although as a matter of construction, the subject can be the butt of the joke as well. And just like the exaggeration, the butt of the joke and its appropriateness is a contextual matter. The above tweet was neither funny and is arguably objectively offensive due to context. Why? First, it wasn’t intended as a joke. Second, the object of the statement and the photograph was the service of those who died in the attack on Pearl Harbor. The comment combined with the graphic minimize their sacrifices for the sake of crass commercial product placement. I think most people would agree minimizing the death of servicemen and women for the sake of selling soup is tactless and tasteless and not funny.
Now let us consider the actions of Ms. Leggero.
She said in reference to that story that “[i]t sucks that the only survivors of Pearl Harbor are being mocked by the only food they can still chew.”
Let’s dissect that a bit. The subject is the news story about the tweet, arguably the product and the company that makes it. The verb is “sucks”. The object is the survivors of Pearl Harbor. The exaggeration is “being mocked by the only food they can still chew” which contains an implied object of “dentures”. Since humor has a subjective component and some people have no sense of humor to start with, let’s just put that aside for the moment and look at the objective components of humor which lay not only in construction of the joke, but in the social context within which it exists.
By breaking down Ms. Leggerro’s quip it becomes clear that the butt of the joke is the product and the company that makes it as the subject and the secondary butt of the joke is the implied object of dentures. At no time does she belittle the service of those victims of Pearl Harbor nor minimize their sacrifice. The exaggeration is dentures. The survivors of Pearl Harbor provide the context that grounds the exaggeration of dentures back to the verb and the primary butt of the joke, SpaghettiOs. As a matter of construction, it is hard to argue the joke is objectively offensive. It was a joke, intended as a joke, by a professional comedienne, made at the expense of a product sold by a corporation who in a tactless and tasteless manner and through their own actions minimized in general the survivors and victims of Pearl Harbor. (Feel free to insert your own joke about how nasty SpaghettiOs are here.)
Yet, Ms. Leggero caught some heat for her joke. She’s a big girl and a humor professional. That’s just a risk of the gig and because of the subjective component of humor, it is hard to be upset with those who took exception to her joke. Some people grok humor better than others. Offense is inevitable. Here are some of the responses on Twitter to her joke:
@CarsonDaly @natashaleggero Making fun of Pearl Harbor Vets? I’ve got family on the Arizona. There are lots of things to mock – not them.
— Prepper Illinois (@Prepper_IL) January 1, 2014
I don’t think she was mocking them but rather the product/company as a matter of construction.
@natashaleggero @CarsonDaly @janemarielynch @AndersonAnthony Making fun of Pearl Harbor vets? You are a VILE human being!
— Jennifer Palumbo (@Jenn10001) January 1, 2014
Really? I’m pretty sure she said it was SpaghettiOs that sucked.
Natasha Leggero just made a joke about the SpaghettiOs Pearl Harbor tweet that was probably more offensive than the tweet itself.
— Craig Lloyd (@craig_lloyd) January 1, 2014
If you didn’t figure out who the butt of the joke was? Maybe.
To her credit, Ms. Leggero handles the non-tempest with great aplomb and upbraiding humor. The following is her full response she posted to Tumblr:
On New Years Eve I made what I thought was a harmless joke http://dailym.ai/1crNs71
Here is my response:
Well hello America!
It’s been a busy few days but rest assured, I have received all of your messages and have been busy sifting through the different creatively misspelled death threats, rape fantasies and most of all repeated use of the the C word. In the past few days I have been called a cunt so much I felt like I was in a British pub rooting for the wrong soccer team. Click here to see some of my faves!
I wish I could apologize, but do you really want another insincere apology that you know is just an attempt at damage control and not a real admission of guilt? Let me just try instead to be honest.
I’m not sorry. I don’t think the amazing courage of American veterans and specifically those who survived Pearl Harbor is in any way diminished by a comedian making a joke about dentures on television. Do we really believe that the people who fought and defended our freedom against Nazis and the Axis powers will find a joke about Spaghetti O’s too much to bear? Sorry, I have more respect for Veterans than to think their honor can be impugned by a glamorous, charming comedian in a fur hat.
That’s not to say I don’t think comedians are a problem in this country, they are a financial drain on the people who date them and talk far too much about themselves. I’m thrilled to see how passionate (death threats against a five foot tall woman are always the height of passion!) people are about our country and our Veterans. I am too. My own father lost his hearing in the Vietnam War so the issue is pretty close to me too. So rather than apologize, let me offer another perspective.
On the one hand you have me, making a joke about how old people can’t chew tough foods very well.
On the other hand you have Veterans who receive inadequate care upon their return from active duty, rampant sexual assault against female soldiers, staggering rates of suicide, traumatic brain injury, PTSD, substance abuse and depression among soldiers and political gridlock that prevents these problems from getting solved quickly.
Where do you think your outrage and action would be better served, calling me a cunt or doing something about the above problems?
For those of you that are currently doing both: Kudos!
To our vets: I love you. I truly hope you know that.
To Spaghetti O’s: Let’s do lunch.
To the Elderly: Chew!
To @nealrscott: It’s spelled Human Excrement not Increatment.
To those looking for an active way to address the above problems, do what I’ve decided to do instead of apologize: Make a donation to the Disabled American Veterans foundation. (link http://www.dav.org)
Ever Yours,
Natasha Leggero”
She pretty much agrees with the above deconstruction based upon her response and then goes on to make a point about what real offense in regards to veterans looks like. No apology. Just a sincere and honest explanation.
What do you think? Offensive, not offensive, something else altogether?
Source(s): Huffington Post (1, 2), freep.com, natashaleggero.tumblr.com
P.S. I like her. Sure, she hasn’t replaced my beloved Rachel Weisz in my heart (curse you Daniel Craig!). But I do like her.
Nicole Plyler Fisk
Gene Howington
FFS Guest Blogger
Joy of Fishes
Chuck Stanley
shortfinals
Terry Welshans
ann li-summers
wordcloud9
Flowers For Socrates 
With regard to rape humor, a friend of mine made the point that if making jokes about rape helps a rape victim to cope, does anyone have the right to tell her she’s wrong for doing so?
True. Humor is a multi-funciton tool and catharsis is not the least of its functions.
The joke wasn’t side-splitting funny, but to my mind it was obviously not disrespectful. People are awfully quick to jump on a perceived slight toward service members. I have a bigger issue with corporations draping themselves in patriotism as a marketing ploy. As Ms. Leggero suggested, if one wishes to honor veterans, donate to causes that support them, or volunteer at a VA clinic.
I see nothing particularly offensive; she realized the Pearl Harbor vets are old codgers, and made an old-codger joke. The old-codgers in my family (although none from Pearl Harbor) laugh at old-codger jokes, and would actually take offense at some youngster taking offense on their behalf.
Because the survivors of Pearl Harbor are not just old, they are old soldiers that fought a righteous war, and in their place I would want people to remember that, I certainly would not want to be demoted to the rank of child that needs protection.
That’s not offensive in the least …. But when you have the morality police policing…. Then whose policing the morality police….
It was funny. And the old veterans at the VA hospital I volunteered at would get a laugh out of it, I’m sure.
Maybe I need sensitivity training but I find nothing offensive in any of it.
On the other hand I see nothing particularly patriotic in the tweet and nothing really knee-slapping in the joke … both are ho-hum in my book.
She said in reference to that story that “[i]t sucks that the only survivors of Pearl Harbor are being mocked by the only food they can still chew.”
===================================================================
what! What!! WHAT!!!
as a bill cosby fan and jello pudding aficionado i am outraged.
outraged and appalled
appalled and offended
where’s the tv remote, megyn kelly’s coming on.
I agree with Blouise. I found nothing either offensive or funny about the exchange. As the Vulcan Lt Saavik said to the half-vulcan Spock in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: “Humor. It is a difficult concept.”
And, of course, the old actor’s deathbed adage:
“Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.”
As long as I have been in this business, it never ceases to amaze me just how concrete minded some people are. I know people with terminal degrees with no ability at all to interpret a joke. I never really understood the comic strip “Dilbert” until I went to work for a mental health center.
“Mental health center.” Now there is an oxymoron if there ever was one. At least the one I worked for was. Stanton Samenow should have used the CEO’s picture for the cover illustraion of his book.
Michael Murry,
I like humor that takes me by surprise … the off the wall stuff.
pete does it for me and we used to have a poster back in the day … Henman … who could constantly catch me with the unexpected one liner.
OS,
Good to see you ol’ boy and good to read you with the light touch.
Michael Murray,
Wrath of Khan quote. Nice.
Charlton,
When I was doing work for GM Dilbert just seemed normal, not funny (kind of like Seinfeld when I was living in Manhattan). About the only differences between the comics and a day at the job was that GM had their own acronyms and the bosses didn’t really have pointy hair.
A friend of mine was working for a company that had a contract with a certain telecom and was in a meeting with one of their managers. During the course of the meeting, the manager mentioned that Scott Adams had once worked for him. Which wouldn’t have been such a big deal if he didn’t go on to say that Mr. Adams based one of his characters on him. Apparently he really did have pointy hair.
It seems that we became too politically correct as a society.