SK: Thanks very much for your paper, Emily. Can you start our discussion by introducing the ideas in it, please.

EM: My main thought in the paper is that there is more to say about the nature of offensive comedy – and particularly that performed by comedians on stage – than simply saying, ‘Don't punch down.’ Similarly, there seems to be more to say than simply stating the opposing view that comedians are in a special, protected position of being able to say whatever they like and to offend whoever they like. What I try to do in the paper is explore and steer a course for a position between these two other views.

First, I think that comedy can be and should be treated as different. There is, and should be, room for subversive comedy, to push boundaries and for people to tell offensive jokes. If there weren't such a space in comedy, then where else would it be? Second, I discuss the ideas of punching up and punching down, and I think these labels roughly track the right moral features of the world, and also that some jokes can be offensive and this be a significant fact. In particular, some jokes that punch down can reinforce attitudes that lead to certain groups facing discrimination and marginalisation. However, when I discuss this in the second half of the paper, I suggest that ‘don't punch down’ isn't an entirely successful ethic. Some jokes against marginalized groups aren't cases – or at least aren't straightforward cases – of punching down. One worry I have is that the label ‘punching down’ can mislead us, and here I also include misleading the professional comedian. This label gets us to focus on roughly those jokes that we should be concerned about, but we might be misled into focusing too much on the direct target of a joke – that is, the intended target of the joke in the comedian's head – and not enough on the effects on the audience. Those two features can come apart. I mention and discuss different sorts of jokes in relation to this, for example, subversive rape jokes and milder jokes (I mention those that involve less harmful stereotypes, such as those about women being bad at parking). The distinction between punching up and punching down doesn't get us to all we'd want to say, and care about, when it comes to these and other jokes.

I leave the paper on a deeper worry in light of the importance of the audience. The comedian can't really know who the audience, or the full audience, is in the modern world. A joke can be successful with one audience and avoid punching down, but one can't guarantee that it won't find its way to a different audience where it will have a different effect and interpretation. That seems like a huge problem for any ethic for comedians.

SK: That's great. Thanks Emily. Alex, do you want to ask anything?

AF: First of all, I want to say how much I enjoyed the paper, Emily. Often there is a good deal of reductive analysis of this distinction that I have read and heard, and I thought the depth you go into in the paper was excellent to see.

One thing that I thought was interesting was when you discussed people who have, what we can call, ‘protected characteristics’. I think there is a danger of oversimplifying such people or such characteristics. It can be well intended, but it carries a risk of doing more harm than good. It almost says that by definition to joke about such people, or their characteristics, is to punch down. Not only does it close down speech, it risks treating people as defined only or simply by these characteristics that, by necessity, classify along group lines. I have seen this on the live comedy circuit where some clubs will give performers a list of ‘dos and don'ts’, which will include a well-intentioned list of people one cannot mention. I find that worrying, even if it stops some problems as well, such as obvious racist or sexist jokes. I think anything that explores the idea that the distinction between punching up and down is a blunt tool that needs refinement is to be applauded because it gets us into the zone of exploring when and why a joke does punch down (and is to be avoided or called out) and when and why a (very) similar joke does not punch down. If comedians as entertainers are also aspiring to be creative artists, then there surely will be cases where they create jokes that sit on the right side of things and where they can take artistic risks. ‘Don't punch down!’ is a good rule of thumb, but that should be an invitation to think further about the issues.

I think the focus on the audience in particular is really good.

EM: Yes. I suspect that those clubs or evenings that have a rule of ‘no punching down’ are often the nights with the most receptive audiences. Those performances and audiences can be more intelligent in the way boundaries are pushed whilst avoiding punching down.

AF: Agreed. When we have discussed these issues before as a larger group of comedians and philosophers, I have expressed sympathy with the creation of spaces and evenings where there is more risky or dark humour. It needn't only involve material around protected characteristics, for example, but also topics such as disease, war, and violence. One has to be careful with such topics of course, both as a performer and an MC/organiser. It takes a certain amount of signalling at the start and throughout, and you need to ensure that you have prepared the audience in advance with how you advertise. For example, recently I was organizing and programming a show around Christmas time and we had a large group booking. I know that one of the comedians was planning to do some material on sexual assault. The material was edgy, certainly, but also within the bounds of acceptability, I felt. Nevertheless, I thought it right to contact the organiser of the group to raise the issue, particularly as a group out for a gig around Christmas time might not be expecting this sort of set. So, there are two things going on here: just general decency, of course, but also the idea that jokes and stand-up don't exist in a vacuum. The audience is really important to the comedy, to the atmosphere that is created. I am a big believer in this. And this taps into many of the things you were discussing, around punching up and down, and how the audience itself can interact with the performance.

EM: Good. I think that introduces a new and interesting dimension. I was focusing on insults, broadly construed, but this also introduces the element of pain and painfulness. I presume topics such as disease, war, and assault needn't involve insults, but they can still be dark and painful. Although there would be some cases where because an audience member laughs in the wrong place that can be a form of insult.

This brings in the general issues of ‘content’: first, whether there are certain topics that can't be joked about generally and, secondly and more specifically, whether there are certain topics that are off-limits for certain evenings or certain audiences. I expect that we won't end up with much on the list of the never acceptable topics: the possibility of interesting subversion – in front of the right kind of audience – will leave the majority on the table. What we might find, instead, is as Alex suggested, topics where extra caution and skill is required of the comedian, both around some characteristics and around tragedy.

The audiences, however, are a crucial factor in weighing up which jokes will land as intended, and which will not, as well as which jokes might do harm. Your remarks, Alex, also raise something I don't consider in the paper, namely the fact that even for one and the same night, you might anticipate different audiences at different times of year – at Christmas, say, rather than in February. That only adds to my concluding worry, of when the comedian can get a good enough sense of the audience of their jokes to risk the edgy and subversive.

AF: Yes. Here is an additional thought. Stand-ups need to be careful to resist easy and simple portrayals of the characters we talk about in general. Occasionally I'll change the gender of someone in one of my stories from female to male. It removes the risk of punching down. But this isn't necessarily true to the event that happened. I had a female student draw lots of penises on a textbook, which I retell as part of a routine. I eventually changed her to a boy in the story as it just worked better and the story was simpler. I do wonder whether there is something sad about feeling the need to distort things even in subtle ways like this.

SK: Before it gets lost, can I just reintroduce Alex's point about the use of protected characteristics, please? These labels can protect people from harmful jokes, certainly, but their use might also mean that people get defined and categorized in limited ways on some occasions. These labels can harm in more than one way. As a second point, your analysis relies a lot on group associations as that can be both a good and bad feature. Emily, any thoughts specifically in response to that?

EM: I avoid the term ‘protected characteristics’ and instead discuss jokes that take aim at marginalised, vulnerable, or oppressed groups in society, although of course there would be significant overlap. Jokes targeting such groups and individuals are a sensible starting point for thinking about when jokes might be troubling in contributing to a wider, unjust hierarchy. If we want to talk about injustice, we won't get anywhere by avoiding terms that refer to injustices facing groups, like racism, sexism, ableism, and homophobia.

How we should use such labels in our interactions is a separate issue, of course, to that of the paper, so I'll not comment on defining and limiting people accordingly, although I recommend Ella Whiteley's sophisticated analysis of the kinds of attention we pay to people when we see them as, say, women philosophers, rather than just philosophers, or Black artists, rather than as artists (Whiteley, Reference Whiteley2023).

As to the second point, any analysis of social interactions and especially of injustice that doesn't think about groups would be starkly limited. Although, of course, philosophers have spent too long thinking about one-dimensional examples of two individuals interacting on a one-off basis, in both ethics and in politics.

SK: Great. So, the idea of groups intrigues me, and I suspect it will be a recurring theme as we discuss further. Here is a question that trades on that theme and introduces another aspect of the distinction between punching up and punching down. That distinction is based on an actual (or perceived) power distinction at its heart: either a difference between target and wider society/audience or between target and performer. However, is it so easy to demarcate who is powerful and who less powerful in some instances? And if so, whilst the distinction might be a useful way to frame things initially, does it end up confusing us more than it helps?

Here are two examples, both of them groups. First, consider mothers-in-law. They are a traditional target for humour, at least in the UK, so much so that one might say that anyone who is a mother-in-law is less powerful often because of this belittling style of humour. However, in some families, mothers and mothers-in-law can be powerful and wield disproportionate power over family members. So even if we shouldn't joke, or joke as much, about mothers-in-law, is it so obvious that the explanation boils down simply to some ‘punching down’ analysis? Perhaps they are powerful and deserve to be joked about.

The second case concerns posh, monied politicians, for example certain politicians who went to prominent English public schools such as Eton. Now, some of these politicians are powerful in many ways: politically and financially, certainly, and they are normally very well networked. But they are joked about and picked on so often, that one might almost say that in certain spaces they lose a lot of power. They become complete figures of fun, parodied at every turn. And if this happens a lot, do they have less power within the comedy space? Does that affect the analysis at all? Does the analysis using the concepts of punching up and punching down work when we look at power only outside the comedy space and its influences? Or do we have to speak about people being powerful (or powerless) overall or in certain ways? Because, otherwise, we can end up with a group that is made powerless (or less powerful) through being made figures of fun with the implication that we should feel as if we shouldn't joke about them anymore. And that seems as if it would be an odd result.

EM: Good question. The thing I would say first of all is that I am focusing specifically and mainly on jokes involving systematically marginalised and oppressed groups. Jokes about Eton politicians, and mothers-in-law qua mothers-in-law, don't fall within the points I was making in the paper.

But, second, I think the problem in the main with mother-in-law jokes is that they are sexist. They play on and perpetuate certain stereotypes and do so in a sexist way that can be harmful. To be clear here, even if there could be jokes about what women are like that aren't sexist – or at least aren't harmful - mother-in-law jokes typically are at least sexist.

As to the power of the mother-in-law in the family, that doesn't make these jokes acceptable. Even the jokes centrally about mothers-in-law having power often imply some sexist thought about women having power in general (e.g., why should they have this power?, or look how pettily women exercise power). Indeed, the supposed power of the mother-in-law would merit further analysis from a gendered perspective: it is a narrowly circumscribed and limited form of power, perhaps a reaction to the limited options in a female life in a certain era.

When it comes to Etonian politicians, I'm not worried at all. I am persuaded by those people who think that some or many jokes are nasty and have to have targets. Plus, some of these politicians are targets and deserve to be targets because of the power they exercise. So, to respond to your point, I don't think that comedy is a special space in the sense you indicate: even if Etonian politicians are less powerful in the (demarcated) comedy space, we still should be able to laugh at them because they have so much power elsewhere and overall.

SK: Thanks. I agree with you about Etonian politicians! Can I push you a little bit more on mothers-in-law, please, if only for clarity. Imagine we have a routine, perhaps having a ‘compare and contrast structure’, where the comedian talks about both mothers-in-law and fathers-in-law. Both play into certain stereotypes: the nagging mother-in-law, the useless father-in-law, say. Do you think it is sexist in both cases, with equal strength? Or is there something still worse about typical mother-in-law jokes?

EM: I think I am far less worried about the jokes concerning men, or at least jokes about their uselessness. (Although that is not to say that there might not be some worries.) The reason is that men typically have more spaces and times in their lives where they are automatically seen as more powerful and more competent, so if there is some sphere, such as the ‘home sphere’, where they are not, then it isn't as damaging as the equivalent jokes about women. Plus, there might be some connection with this type of joke and the illegitimate free passes that some men get to do little to no housework, with the burden falling disproportionately on women: ‘men are useless at this stuff, so it is fine for and better if women do more of the work around the home’.

One more point about the idea of nagging when it comes to mothers-in-law: perhaps sometimes people nag because they aren't getting heard. We can know that in some real-life cases, and we can imagine in some humorous fictional scenarios, a woman is seen as nagging only because she is not being listened to. So, she has to make her point more often than she should. That is not to be assumed to be her fault.

Anyway, I think there is something morally questionable about these gendered stereotypes. I think the worry I have is not so much about mothers- and fathers-in-law per se, then.

SK: Great. Can I take you down a side-alley, then? What about accents and regional stereotypes? I am from the Black Country in the West Midlands, a place with an accent that is often the butt of jokes, at least in the UK: people from the Black Country are seen as slow, stupid, unsexy, etc. (Obviously, none of those adjectives apply to me.) This is regularly seen in adverts. If an advertiser wants to sum up a character in three seconds, they will sometimes use an accent, and a Black Country accent is often used to depict certain sorts of character traits. (The same is true of other accents linked to other traits as well. And this phenomenon is in no way confined to the UK, either.) So, what do you think about the use of accents in this way? Are these stereotypes harmful? How does this play with the distinction between punching up and punching down aside from protected characteristics or various ‘isms’?

EM: So, it might depend on the details of the case and the adverts. It might be that we get some combination of a regional accent and another associated stereotype or trope, such as one about poverty that could harm.

One other comment I want to make is that, in addressing advertising, we are possibly in a different sort of space. There is a case to be made that comedians can and should be encouraged to take some artistic risks, hence why we get some interesting and difficult borderline cases when it comes to punching up and punching down, and why we get some interesting questions when it comes to the topics of free speech, offence, and harm. In some cases, a comedian might deploy some stereotypes in an artistically rich way. The position of an advertiser will be different from this. For a start, it isn't obvious that we want them to be, or should licence them to be, as edgy as a comedian. Plus, there are questions around advertising generally, for example why they should intrude and command so much public attention. (I think I can say all of these things whilst acknowledging that there are a few adverts that are genuinely funny and artistic, because they are so obviously in a small minority.) So, I would probably want to work through the case of accents and adverts separately.

AF: So here are a few thoughts. I remember Chris Rock once saying how those with the most have to put up with jokes about them. You can make fun of successful and beautiful people without causing the same harm. Perhaps it is just my personal taste but sometimes jokes about those with power and success (say Etonian politicians) can feel a bit boring and safe. There is a lot of it around.

I have heard recently that some famous comedians have a goal in their shows that they must have at least one controversial joke that will gain them attention. (So much so that I wonder if this even makes its way to contracts with TV streaming services.) I can't think of a time when stand-up comedy has been spoken about more, particularly by people in mainstream media and by everyday people who don't follow comedy very much. That leads me to make three points.

First, what is the intention of these comedians? To have fun and to create laughter or simply to shock and in doing so focus attention on themselves? Second, are they in some way polluting some public discourse in the way that adverts do? I am all for freedom of artistic expression and for the power of comedy and theatre to shock, but if that is coupled with comedians doing it simply to draw attention to themselves, presumably for further reward, then that worries me. Third, some comedians nowadays are very aware of there being at least two audiences, as you discuss in the paper, Emily: the live, in-person audience and the online, later audience. How does that knowing awareness interact with what you say?

EM: Yes, I think the intentional stance is interesting. There are some examples of comedy in previous eras that are deemed problematic, but it isn't clear if the comedians were being deliberately and intentionally provocative in the way we might experience them now, that is in them being deliberately sexist. That certainly seems a different stance or form of intention it is worth dwelling on.

AF: Yes, perhaps there is a new category, or at least one that is more prominent now: whether a comedian expresses transgressive and shocking comedy partly or mainly for personal gain.

EM: Perhaps that is how current audiences or culture conceives of some stand-up. They are allowed to do this and to be our – or some people's – release valve.

Let's now think about the idea of polluting the audience and the earlier point you made about some groups simply being out of bounds for jokes. Perhaps there are some jokes about some groups that simply can't be said, no matter what the intentions of the comedian because the joke is simply too risky. The people are, perhaps, very socially marginalised. The joke will inevitably end up being taken in the wrong way and pollute things.

AF: Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I am inclined to think that in reality it is difficult to imagine this happening. I think that in the hands of some skilful and sensitive comedians, a joke can be made involving or even about a group and this not have the negative affect you are worried about, aside from one or two audience members who might misinterpret many jokes. Of course, some comedians might not be too careful, skilful, or experienced with certain topics and so the joke will fall badly. But that can happen in a range of cases with such comedians. Similarly, we might not want to bend over backwards too much when it comes to the audience. We have to imagine a reasonable audience, surely? Some people will laugh at anything and in doing so take things the wrong way.

When I teach writing and performing classes for aspiring comedians, I do tend to steer some of them away for certain controversial topics because I worry they will struggle to be as careful as they need and want to be when they write and perform. On the other hand, I do allow them to try if they want to in the safer space of class, if only to see if they can do it and to point out the worries if they go wrong.

SK: Thanks Alex. Small point from me. I think the question of whether you can control for a few complainers in the audience is a good one. Obviously in some cases, a small number of people can have just cause to complain, but in many instances, some people don't, either because they are too sensitive or because they have wandered into the wrong sort of evening. If we are constantly worried about some people, then we might not joke about many things.

AF: Yes. It feels uncontroversial to say that there needs to be some kind of threshold for a complaint. If you try hard enough, any joke could be interpreted as being at someone's expense or viewed through an ungenerous lens. I don't know how or whether such a threshold of complaint can be quantified.

SK: Can I move us on? Here is another question comparing what you mostly focus on, Emily, with something you briefly mention. You are asking us to steer a course between a Scylla and Charybdis, between allowing for freedom of artistic expression whilst also ensuring that we don't unduly harm and insult. Does the balance look different when we compare professional, live, stand-up comedy with everyday joking amongst friends and acquaintances?

EM: I think this is a very good question. I am inclined to think that they are not similar because the dynamics are different. First, the contribution to social harms that one can make in normal circumstances when joking with friends is a lot lower than the joking made by an average comedian, even if we are talking about a club circuit comedian playing to an average sized audience and not a Netflix, stadium comedian. Audience members can spread the joke around. It can get out into the wild more than when you are with close friends.

Second, I think that when you are joking with friends you might not have the same permissions as a stand-up comedian has and you therefore might have a greater chance of overstepping the boundaries. Sometimes you can have such permissions, such as when you are with trusted friends and you know what sort of evening you might be in for. But, in general, we have a social duty not to go around harming others and making people feel uncomfortable through causing offence. On the other hand, the comedian has a certain licence that I acknowledge in the paper and want to work with. The licence doesn't stretch to them saying anything they want, but we do want comedians to test certain conventions and norms.

Plus, a new point, we accept that the comedian on stage can play a certain role and can be there to be mean and nasty; that is part of the art and part of the tension we go to see. When it comes to interpersonal, everyday joking, if jokes are picking out certain groups they can be nasty, and then we have a different dynamic because we know the person making the jokes and we may also know their targets. I don't think friends and acquaintances have the sort of licence and role that the comedian has to be mean and nasty.

AF: I agree that in private conversations there are different dynamics. But do you think there are some gradations? So, there is an echo of the comedian's licence to be nasty or darker in some friendship groups. With some groups, some friends will play a certain role: be it the joker, or someone who is mean, or someone who says the unsayable, or someone who is really sarcastic and cynical, or whatever.

EM: Yes, that seems right. You can clearly have some local agreements or norms in place with people you know well. That would be a good way to develop this material, to think about the ethics of everyday joke telling. For example, one might want to distinguish the case you just mention, Alex, from, say, the case of when a boss is doing the joking. Some potentially awful power dynamics in play there.

AF: Agreed.

SK: Can I throw another type of example in at this point, in part to bring us back to one of the ideas right at the end of your paper, Emily. What do we say about the person who posts funny videos to social media sites every so often and who trades in dark, edgy humour? They aren't a professional comedian, not even a ‘regular amateur’ on the club circuit. This is a low-level hobby they have, which nevertheless has enabled them to build a following, a following they have no control over but which they might have interacted with a bit in the comments below each video. There are, I suspect, many people who are in this position and much content out there on social media which is like this. What sort of licence do they have to say what they want to say? How much can we see them as a comedian in the way you treat such people in your paper?

EM: I think the fact that the audience is diffuse and the fact that the person / ‘performer’ doesn't have much control at all over the audience make this a tricky case to think through, especially if they are posting subversive, edgy, dark, potentially offensive humour.

One consideration that comes immediately to mind is the nature of the platform. How good is the platform in guiding viewers/audience members to such humour and how well known is this, by both potential viewers and people who post content? The more things are clear and obvious (and the more the algorithm works), then the more one might be inclined to say, ceteris paribus, that the person who posts content can be confident that their audience will match their material. At that stage we should be less worried than the initial set-up might suggest, and so the person who posts content can have more licence to be offensive in the way that I am imagining a more traditional comedian might have. I am imagining, of course, they have a consistent social persona on their posts and videos.

AF: Just to say that across this discussion and other discussions we've had, plus discussions I have with other (traditional, live) comedians, the blended space that Simon is getting us to think about, between the comedian and the ‘non-comedian’, is really interesting. I suspect it throws up several issues about free speech, offence, licensing and so on.

EM: Yes. Actually, I have another example of this phenomenon, that has been buzzing round my head. It is a more traditional type of example. Just think about people who have to play a role of a comedian for a brief but significant moment, such as when someone has to be a best man at a wedding and give a speech.

AF: Oh! This is one of the worst things! We expect someone who often has no experience of public speaking to stand up and give a speech to one of the toughest crowds ever on a very emotional day. You have to play to the bridal party, the groom's party, 80-year-old granny, and teenagers. You have to say something meaningful and funny. It's insane! I've never seen a good one.

EM: There is also the case of a roasting speech, done by non-traditional performers.

SK: Good examples! So, can I take us back to the question, then? Do these people get some licence to offend in a similar way to the comedian? I suppose in the case of wedding speeches a lot of the answer to this question is heavily influenced by who the audience is. To take Alex's point, the best man will have a very good sense of who the audience is, and so a good speech will probably not offend very much. What licence the person has is taken away because the occasion and the speech have to perform a number of (conflicting) roles: be romantic, be funny, be grateful, poke fun in a gentle way, and so on. Going for dark and edgy humour is not the order of the day when it comes to many weddings. The most one could do is slip in a double entendre or two, I imagine.

EM: I am fairly certain most of us have witnessed egregiously misfiring best men speeches! But I suspect, Simon, that you've just offered us a pretty good sketch of the appropriate limits of the comedic performance of a best man's speech.

SK: One last question from me, or really an invitation. Could you please say more about the cases you see as relatively benign, Emily, such as the case of women parking, and how they differ from the edgy, dark, and difficult cases, such as sexual assault cases.

EM: I suppose one of the core thoughts I have, especially following this discussion, is this. I don't think the distinction between punching up and punching down should be used simply and straightforwardly in a way that means we cannot make jokes about particular groups. Or, in other words, I don't think that all negative jokes about a certain group are always wrong. So, for example, some jokes about women parking can be fine. Of course, immediately one can qualify that. Context really matters. Perhaps such jokes are never fine if one lives in a country where women are banned from driving.

So, even thinking through that example in a limited way shows us that things can get complex. We have to think about which sorts of jokes about certain groups are in and which are out, and which jokes by which joke-teller in which context are acceptable, and why. Alex is right that the distinction between punching up and punching down is a good rule of thumb. Perhaps we can get a little more precise about it, although not very much. The end point of the paper is that we should pay more attention to the dynamic involved with subversive jokes than this distinction might indicate initially, that is those jokes that might subvert or undermine assumptions about people in a certain group.

One other point about context. It will really matter as to what the norms and views are within the audience of the joke. That is one of the main worries that continues to be a worry with any jokes involving reference to sexual assault and rape. We know that many men have weak attachment to negative views of sexual assault. Hence, if you are making a joke involving reference to sexual assault where you have a lot of men in the audience, you can't assume how that will exactly go down even if you are trying to be subversive. So, the lesson, I suppose, is: ‘Be careful over here. No need to be as careful over there.’ That is a bit more specific than simply involving the distinction between punching up and punching down, although it is still fairly vague. It would be nice to have a detailed list of considerations, but that might be hard to achieve. The details might be filled in by the details of the context, that is, the context and norms in the wider society and then, secondly, the norms that are operating within the audience.

SK: Just one more thing, then. As we have indicated, your analysis has the group in the foreground when we are thinking about how, when, and why we ‘punch’ in comedy, Emily. There is a family in-joke that is going round my head at the moment, something my kids and I will often say. Every so often we imagine someone who is annoying or irritating us. They belong in an obvious way to a particular group. There is some unspoken, imagined conversation where we are criticizing them, where they are (again, unspoken) imagined to be defending themselves. They are assuming we are criticizing them because they belong to a certain group. The spoken line is then always, ‘Oh no! You don't understand. I'm not a racist, a misogynist, [a whatever]. I just don't like YOU!’ and the kids or I point our finger.

One thought from me about that. Say a comedian wants to make a joke about a particular person. They've done or said something stupid. But they recognize that most likely members of the audience will think of this person as being from a particular group, indeed it might be one of the most salient things about them. Now, it might be a matter of skill and craft for the comedian to get the audience in the right frame of mind to appreciate the point of the joke. But how does this type of example play into the thoughts of your paper if so much of your analysis is group-based? It comes back to Alex's thought right near the start about treating people as being more than simply belonging to a group that has a protected characteristic or being an obvious member of a certain group.

EM: As it happens, I think this example is slightly easier to deal with than some of our other examples. The distinction between punching up and punching down is often interpreted as one based on power dynamics. That has come up in our discussion: ‘Who's got more power? You or the mother-in-law?’ And I think that is a mistake. I think in the type of example you have in mind, where the joke focuses on a particular person and not the identity, where it is sufficiently particular to that person's particular acts and not their group identity, the joker is not on such dangerous ground.

By contrast, I think that we can straightforwardly say that where a joke trades on racist, ableist, sexist (etc.) tropes, it will be a dangerous joke to make simply because that type of joke runs the risk of perpetuating the harms against people in a certain sort of group, a group that has (in some respects) less power and/or is often harmed. The comedian might be skilled, but even if we grant them a bit more licence in general, they need to have due regard for likely effect on audience.

And, as I say in the paper, that last idea makes things even trickier in an age where the comedian can't be sure of who exactly the audience will in the end turn out to be. Jokes can escape and be interpreted in certain unintended ways, even if the framing is especially careful.

SK: Great. Thanks, I think that is a good point to end things. Thanks so much, Emily and Alex, for all your thoughts and the discussion.