tract #18 | Woke-Machine.org | Download leaflet #18
Scientific argument
The Incompatibility of Humor with Truth: A Plea for Its Ban
Humor is often seen as an escape from the rigors of daily life, a breath of fresh air in a sometimes oppressive world. Yet, as Jorge de Burgos argued, “Humor is incompatible with Truth; it is a form of blasphemy.” This statement, far from being merely provocative, raises fundamental questions about the very nature of humor and its role in contemporary society. If we take this statement seriously, we must also consider the idea that humor can be not only harmful, but also deeply reactionary.
The Incompatibility of Humor with Truth
For Jorge de Burgos, humor is a distortion of reality. When people laugh, they momentarily suspend their seriousness about the world, which can lead to a kind of unproductive irreverence. This is particularly problematic in the context of truth-seeking. By taking refuge in irony and derision, humor distorts what is sacred and serious. While it is true that some jokes can highlight the inherent absurdities of certain situations, they also cause us to lose sight of the seriousness of the human condition and the essential truths that society must confront.
Humor as blasphemy
The idea that humor is blasphemous is not limited to a distortion of the truth; it also encompasses an attack on sacred values and the norms respected by communities. To blaspheme is to attack what is held sacred or inviolable. In this sense, humor must be seen as a form of desecration. When humor mocks sacred, religious, or moral matters, it trivializes what is venerated and solemn, trampling on the respect due to sacred beliefs and values. This irreverence is not only a form of resistance; it represents a spiritual assault on the very foundations of the community. In this sense, humor, through its blasphemous aspect, sabotages the pillars of respect and reverence that support a harmonious and ethical society.
Humor as a reactionary mechanism
The conservative power of humor should also be noted. The cynical buffoon, by mocking everything, discourages engagement and trivializes injustice. When social and political situations are subjected to satire, they often lose their urgency and gravity. Laughter overshadows calls to action, and consensus becomes harder to achieve.
Even more seriously, humor can often serve as a refuge for reactionary and conservative ideas. Sexist, racist, and homophobic jokes, for example, perpetuate harmful stereotypes and reinforce oppressive power structures. Under the guise of humor, remarks that would otherwise be deemed unacceptable find social validation. In this way, the cynical buffoon not only overlooks the offenses he provokes, he legitimizes and reinforces them.
Humor and Systemic Violence
Humor is never completely harmless. On the contrary, it can intensify forms of systemic violence that already exist in a society. For example, jokes that stigmatize marginalized groups, even when told "for laughs," contribute to an atmosphere where these groups are objectively devalued. Humor thus becomes a tool of domination and marginalization. The wounds it inflicts are not always visible, but they are no less real.
When humor hurts, it perpetuates a dynamic in which certain voices are silenced, in favor of those who hold social power. This power dynamic is often unconscious but pervasive. As history has demonstrated, laughter can be weaponized against the vulnerable.
Unconscious aggression
Humor can be seen as an expression of unconscious aggression. Sigmund Freud already pointed out that seemingly harmless or innocent actions can mask darker impulses. Humor can thus be a form of catharsis, where pent-up frustrations and anger are disguised under a veneer of humor. This poses a significant challenge: how can we identify and dismantle the subtly aggressive forces present in jokes that may seem innocent or even benevolent at first glance?
A call to action: ban humor
Considering the points raised above, we might consider a radical action: banning humor from our social interactions as a necessary step toward building a more equitable and respectful society. Just as we stopped spitting in the street for reasons of public health and civility, it is high time we considered stopping humor for the sake of social harmony and truth.
While this may seem extreme, it's crucial to remember that major social changes have often required bold action. Behaviors that were once normalized have been regulated or outlawed to better reflect the values of a progressive society. The same could be said for humor.
Conclusion: A future without humor?
Abolishing humor doesn't necessarily mean depriving life of joy or lightness. Rather, it's about redirecting those energies toward more respectful and inclusive forms of communication. A world without humor, as it's perceived today, isn't necessarily a dour, fun-free world. It's a world where every word is carefully weighed, mutual respect prevails, and truth is straightforwardly sought.
For some, this vision may seem utopian. For others, it is a moral imperative. In any case, the reflection deserves to be continued. We must question the use and impact of humor and ask ourselves whether it is compatible with the values of a society that aspires to truth, justice, and kindness.
Humor, as it exists today, is a slippery slope, a layered series of meanings that can hurt as much as it can delight. Considering its prohibition, or at least its strict regulation, could be a step toward a more harmonious society, where truth and mutual respect take center stage.
Download the tract_18 A4 – PDF | X size JPG (600×1200)
We apologize in advance if anything on this page offends you. If that is the case, please go here.