The word has lost all meaning
This article, which appeared on USA Today’s website, may be a watershed moment in the evolution of the English language.
And it may also be a historical chapter in policing standup comedy.
USAT’s Ann Oldenburg says, in the headline, “Tiger Woods may be going through serious personal drama, but the jokes about him are flying.” There follows a list of jokes (and a list of lists of jokes).
A third of the way down the list, Oldenburg says:
— George Lopez and Wanda Sykes have both made the same racist joke about Tiger’s crash.
And the words “the same racist joke” are a link. Click on that link and you’re taken to something called LiveJournal, “a free service for all your journaling and blogging needs.” The posting is anonymous and it repeats the charge of racism.
It gets weirder.
The LiveJournal thing is just a complete lifting of a posting on Gawker.tv, by Mike Byhof. In it, Byhoff juxtaposes clips of Lopez and Sykes telling a similar Tiger Woods joke on their respective late-night talk shows.
A third clip, of Joe Koy doing the same joke on Chelsea Lately, with a “Ching-Chong Chinaman imitation” (Byhoff’s description, not ours), is also included.
The clips are prefaced by this bit of tut-tutting:
George Lopez and Wanda Sykes are both minority comedians hosting new late night shows. They both promised to bring something new to late night. Looks like all they’re doing is recycling each other’s tired, old, racist jokes.
Tiger Woods is half black and half Asian. Blacks are obviously criminals, and Asians obviously can’t drive cars. Hearing just one late night host make this joke is one time too many.
Thank you, Mike Byhoff! You have saved the world! The planet is once again safe for good comedy. And you have also struck a blow against “racism!”
Look, Dude: Late-night talk show hosts have an eye-popping need for material. Their writers must come up with hundreds of usable jokes in a given week. And they come up with thousands– many hundreds of which are not usable.
These jokes we see here are but a fraction of their output.
Are these three similar? No one disputes this.
Are they obvious? Yes. Are they indicative of some sort of laziness on the part of Lopez or Sykes? No.
We hasten to point out that all three jokes got a huge response from the audience. And that is the object of the game.
Are all the jokes that Sykes or Lopez might spit out on a particular evening as obvious or as simple as this one? No.
Further, the videos do not demonstrate that the comedians in question are “recycling each other’s tired, old, racist jokes.” Quite the contrary. What we have here might be a recycling of old premises, but not old jokes– the incident was only a day or two old by the time the jokes were told, so no one could honestly say– even in the age of the WWW and instant communication– that they’re “old.”
Are the premises tired? Tough call. But, as we said before, the jokes got a response. So, obviously, the premise was either new (or sturdy enough) to trigger a mirthful response from those who heard them.
Finally: Are the jokes racist? This might be the least defensible of Byhoff’s prissy tirade.
We’re utterly mystified as to his contention that the jokes somehow imply that Woods (and, by implication, all black people) are “obviouisly criminals.”
What is implied is not criminality, but that African Americans favor fancy, expensive rims/wheels and that African-Americans buy Cadillacs in disproportionately high numbers. And what is also implied is that Asians are bad drivers. In the grand scheme of things, neither of these “stereotypes,” though they may be clichéd, come anywhere near being vicious or hate-filled.
So, through overuse, folks like Byhoff and Oldenburg and the anonymous LiveJournal blogger have effectively stripped the word “racist” (and with it the concept of racism) of all of its meaning.
And, judging from the comments on Gawker.tv, they’ve managed to make all comedians look bad.
Job well done, all of you.
7 Responses
Reply to: The word has lost all meaning
Aren’t you tired of defending bad jokes?! I love Wanda and Lopez but this joke was obvious and hacky too the fullest. It made people laugh? Wow! Incredible! A fart also makes people laugh!
Listening to you we should think that Carlin and Larry the cable guy have the same value. Dane Cook is equal to Bill Hicks cause they both get laughs?!
I enjoy a wide variety of comics but the ones that we remembers are always the one who have taken risks. Love it or hate it, it’s a fact. Ask the top 10 list of any comics.
Pointing out the fact that some talented comics have been lazy is legitimate.
I don’t know why this site keeps defending banality. Self interest?
Normally, we don’t like to publish comments from anonymous commenters, but since GWagner was so hostile and she’s such a ninny, we figured we’d sling a reply her way.
The part of GWagner’s comment that made us laugh the most was:
“I enjoy a wide variety of comics but the ones that we remember are always the one who have taken risks.”
Such nonsense!
We remember Rip Taylor. We remember Fred Smoot. We remember Alan King. We remember Joel Hodgson. We remember Steve Martin. We remember Steve Allen. We remember Jackie Vernon. We remember Phyllis Diller. We remember Brian Regan. We remember Ronnie Shakes. We remember Jerry Seinfeld. We remember Gilbert Gottfried.
We remember all these comics (and a whole bunch of others) for one simple reason: They made us/make us laugh.
They all take/took risks– they go/went up in front of a roomful of strangers thousands of times and make/made them laugh. Let’s not lose sight of that.
If it makes you feel better to champion comedians who “take risks,” then go ahead. The kind of risk-taking you value so highly is but one approach to standup comedy, but we all take risks.
Putting your face on a network talk show is taking a giant risk. (Perhaps you’ll know this if you ever get the opportunity.)
As for Byhoff, his pointing out the fact “that some talented comics have been lazy” without considering the circumstances (in this case, Lopez and Sykes are hosting a mass-appeal, network television show), is not legitimate. He seems to have a lack of understanding of how the world works. And he seems to be far too hostile toward comedians in general.
Did we “defend banality?” No. We took a nitwit TV writer to task for making a ridiculous call on a couple of harmless jokes.
You love Sykes and Lopez, yet you call them “hacky” and “lazy.” You have a curious way of showing your love.
As for Top Ten Lists, they are but a gimmick, a construct of magazine editors to engage the readers. (We should know– we did one ourselves! Back in 2000, we ran a readers’ poll to determine the Comic of the Millennium. The top ten were predictable– such lists elicit predictable results.)
We get it: You side with the hack who toils for Gawker.tv, and you don’t like every comedian out there. You hold some in contempt. And you hold all of them to incredibly high standards because it makes you feel better about yourself. We get it.
Now that is taking a risk!
I agree with you guys. This is much ado about a throwaway joke.
My comment is not anonymus. My name is Guillaume and I’m a french comedian, you can look me up, I have nothing to hide.
(Since I’m french you have to excuse my lousy english)
What I meant by comics we remember is comics we remember “the most” and you probably knew exactly what I meant. Some people in the 50s probably made the audience laugh harder than Lenny Bruce but Bruce took risks and made the artform advance some step further.
And by the way I never said that controversial comedians were the only ones taking risks. Taking risks means trying to be original. Not using the easy path. Seinfeld was original, Steve Martin was original, Bill Cosby was really original.
What is nonsense is saying that every comics take risks. What is this? The special olympics? Gold medals for everybody? Making a room full of stranger laugh is not that easy… but it’s certainly not that hard either. Theres a lot of patern you can use. Making the room of stranger laugh while being original now thats a challenge and deserve respect.
George Lopez is one of the best pure stand up I’ve seen but it doesnt mean he can’t be wrong sometimes. The joke was hacky, not him. Same for Wanda
“…you don’t like every comedian out there. You hold some in contempt…”
Who does? You like every comedians out there? If yes: Do you have any personnality at all? I respect anyone who goes onstage but having done it a number of times, it’s not the end of the world. Stop tapping yourself on the back for being so retardedly “open minded”
“…And you hold all of them to incredibly high standards because it makes you feel better about yourself. We get it.”
Well no you don’t get it. I don’t care if Larry the cable guy is more popular than Doug Stanhope. What I have a problem with is comedians talking like they both deserve the same amount of respect without taking in consideration the hard work, the passion for the art and the balls it takes trying to create something original that nobody never heard.
Maybe I’m wrong and I’m being a ninny but it seems to me you don’t know how to pay respect to the ones who paved the way for you. Without the comedians who took risks comedy would still be slap in the face and kick in the butt.
But then again it’s all the same thing right? As long as people laugh, everybody is a genius!!
Dear Guillaume:
Your response is astonishingly infantile.
So much so that this is all the response we’ll give it.
The phrase “retardly open-minded” made us howl. It shall be repeated for days. Thank you for giving us a new catchphrase around SHECKYmag HQ!
Shecky folks,
I honestly don’t understand what you’re saying is infantile about Guillaume’s post.
It just seems like he’s saying
1) it’s better to be original in the jokes that you write than not,
and
2) there are comedians who have taken more risks than others, like bruce and carlin, for example, who got into trouble with the law because of what they believed in, for their art… and this is admirable.
Those don’t seem like childish views to me.
While making audiences laugh IS obviously a huge part of the job, the main goal, most would say, there ARE things that many would agree are actually of higher priority…
For example, doing one’s own original material, as opposed to using someone else’s without permission.
(Surely you would agree that getting laughs in that manner is not as deserving of respect as someone who gets laughs with their OWN material?)
And then, what about comedians who tell street jokes that they didn’t write, or jokes that are being passed around in emails that anyone has access to, jokes that might not belong to anyone specifically but jokes that are not being written by the person that’s telling them…
Then, finally, to the point Guillaume makes about the joke in question.
He’s basically saying that it’s an easy joke, as evidenced by so many different people thinking of it so quickly, making the joke objectively less original than many other jokes.
Is it wrong or childish for someone to say that they enjoy or respect comedians more, who tell jokes that no one else is telling? Jokes that seem to be MORE original?
And for Guillaume, it wasn’t even about respect for the comedian per se, as he said he enjoyed Lopez as a standup, but that this particular joke seemed easy and less original than the reasonable standard of originality that he had come to expect from Lopez.
This all seems very grownup.
(As does the invention of the phrase “retardedly open-minded.” I can’t see a baby coming up with that one.)
I don’t know who first used the cadillac-driving joke about the Woods incident, but I thought it was a clever “call back” to the hacky, even possibly racist, jokes of the past! It is probably a once in history event where an incredibly famous person, who happens to be an asian/black, has a very public, “obviously bad driving” car accident in a Cadillac! The joke was obvious, and funny! Sometimes the most obvious jokes are the funniest, that doesn’t mean they are bad.