One could now begin this text with a few baseless and mean jokes by Otto, such as the Friesenjung’ often mixed into the program. For example about civil servants (“Why do civil servants always put a cup of coffee on the monitor in the morning? So that they know where to stop cleaning”.) But honestly: without researching the internet, can you think of any Otto joke that hides people in a horrid way discredited? This is perhaps due to the fact that Otto Waalkes’ humor, which has been successful for decades and has been tried and tested on several generations, if you will, has a harmlessness that can be won over by a majority.
Of course there are crude taunts, of course people also make fun of marginalized social groups, nonsensical human fads, physicalities. Humor is mean, it reflects human misconduct and subjects it to a test by laughing together. Of course, Otto sees it that way too, who sometimes seems like an anarchist who has always remained a child, but who always knew what he was doing. And I’m sure I made a mistake once in a while. There is no comedian without failed punchlines or pale thoughts.
But: humor is always tied to its time, it is decisively determined by it. Which is why it is commonplace to speak of comedy that is no longer up to date. Anything else would be surprising. There will simply never be jokes without a best-before date, even if the longing for them may be great. Even artificial intelligence is likely to fail because of this. And even they, try it out, only know one Otto verdict: “His jokes aim to make you laugh without insulting or discriminating against anyone.”
Comedians can’t help but be hurtful too
Basically, the idea of such trigger warnings is that they give people who are exposed to discrimination or disparagement the opportunity to protect themselves from it, at least in the media space (even if the question has to be allowed as to when the media of all things represented a kind of safe space ). Another added value is that it at least potentially protects children from condescending about things that are mostly foreign to them. There is criticism of such warnings because they appear patronizing. Because everyone should decide for himself what offends him or even what he or she feels offends others. Ultimately, this is also a question of a revisable social consensus that needs to be discussed.
It is also criticized that such (moral?) pointers give entertainment the value of making clear social statements. However, clarity is the death of every art and distinguishes it from other disciplines, which are more about imparting knowledge and commandments. Humorists are keen or tame observers and commentators of their times. But they tend not to take things too seriously. Good this way! That is what they are needed for.
What use are these warning signs for cabaret and cabinet pieces that are getting on in years if they don’t have the courage to clearly state what could be perceived as discriminatory? Here lies the real problem with this ruthless awareness-raising method. She judges without censoring the content on offer: “The following program is shown in its original form as part of the television story. It contains passages of discriminatory language and attitude.” But it doesn’t flag it, it doesn’t make it clear what the problem is. The warners also squirm before the consequences of their evaluation, because for every form of revealing, sometimes mean humor, it can also be misunderstood or not fully understood in the way it works in a story and anecdote. Comedy is complex, which is why very few people are good at telling thigh slaps on stage.
Anyone who warns must also explain precisely why
This is possibly also the reason why Harald Schmidt, when he heard that a warning was placed in the online media library before old episodes of his joke show “Schmidteinander” with Herbert Feuerstein, reacted immediately by stating such information himself good joke of his old comedy school (“World class! A real ‘Schmidteinander’ gag. It’s just a pity that the blessed Feuerstein didn’t live to see it”). Ultimately, the confused audience is left with the impression that something is found to be difficult because it can be understood as potentially distressing through such undefined trigger warnings. Comedy gets a stamp. And what appears so disfigured may well be viewed as potentially problematic by another generation that has not yet heard about it. This makes access difficult. This cannot be what the inventors of such sensitivity perceptions intended.
Those who do not want to discuss what could actually really hurt prove to be in comparison to the comedians, who also take a risk with their program (being laughed at or booed themselves, dealing with authorities and rigid social views or even going into battle against them to pull), as a coward. Nothing weighed heavier in the school of yesteryear than educators wagging their index finger without explaining why.