With Apologies to Thomas Rice.

Anti-Vax Jokes are like Anti-Vaxxers Kids, they never get old.

That, is a Joke. Is it a good one? Juries out. But regardless of our perception of its comedic value, we know we probably ought not to say it to a mother who's child died of Measles, or at the bare minimum, should expect to be slapped if we do. Is this because she's over-sensitive? No. It's because the joke within that context is not funny, its cruel.

Most Jokes are like this. They are contextual, and that context matters in how it affects the way the joke is told, and the response that comes from it. You wouldn't go to a Muslim in 2019 and make a joke about Christchurch, nor would you go to a Holocaust Survivor in 1945 talking about how your dad fell out of a tower. Not because its upsetting alone, but because it tells people your perception of their suffering. Even if your intent is good, the punchline is the horror in question.

Now, of course, there is a difference between telling these jokes in the examples above and a number of years later, which in turn begs the question of how long is long enough, but it does not change the simple fact that some jokes are cruel in their very nature due to the context they are within. You of course have the right to snicker at those jokes behind the scenes, but you should also appreciate that the ever powerful phrase of "chat shit gets hit" also applies.

As the above demonstrates, We intuitively understand that jokes have a hostility period. Where the joke cannot be made within common society without crickets, or potential hostility in response. Why then, can the same not be true to the inverse?

The Short answer is not immediately apparent, why would it be true being the intuitive reason. However, I can offer one response. Sensitivity and context aren't a lever that flips to suddenly being ok one random day. 9/11 jokes didn't suddenly become ok and that was it, it shifts. This shift is dependent on societies perceptions of the wound that may be opened up. the 9/11 25 year anniversary is a point of that wound opening up, to the point that two people being seen laughing there was a minor scandal. In a similar vein, when the 8th of May 2045 occurs, Its understandable that Holocaust or Nazi Jokes will fall back into the vain of edgy behind closed doors humour, rather than edgy humour.

But this has so far skirted around a certain flavour of joke, one that Marcus focuses squarely on. That being the topic of politically incorrect humour. This topic stretches on to Cancel Culture, something I am intending to write a separate essay on in the future, so I'll avoid that topic for the time being. non PC humour is an interesting topic, and one that has a similar rule, read the room.

the true job of a comedian is not to push boundaries, its to make people laugh. Necessarily. reading the room, and society is a whole, is a vital part of that job. It is a byproduct of reading the room that allows them to push boundaries in a way that goes beyond being a simple shock jock. That instead of making us go "ah, the libs will be triggered from that" (Or whatever Ideological angle you personally prefer to laugh at) makes us think about why the joke is making us feel uncomfortable, or, why we find it funny. Which is where the validity -so to speak- of racy humour is bought into question.

As an example, In the modern day, there is nothing that can be found in humour from something being a minstrel show -that is to say, a musical-comedy show with actors engaging in blackface and racist stereotypes. Thus, the only benefit of the minstrel format over a regular comedy show, is the racism. Its, being a shock jock for the sake of being a shock jock. Is that comedy ever recoverable? At this stage of society, no. May that change? Potentially. In the meantime is anything lost? Not unless someone is a lot cleverer with the format -at which point it will have its earnest defenders. This is more impactful than a punchline being culturally taboo, its an entire genre of comedy being effectually banned. Were the people doing it necessarily racist? No more than their colleagues. Their intent was likely pure, but that intent is mired in the simple fact that the joke, the thing that caused laughter a few generations ago, was racism. We cannot judge those people, obviously. But the cultural period where it was anything beyond racism, has passed. And that is fine. Much in the same way comedy has a hostility period, it has an expiration date, and there is no moral judgement to be made upon that, it just is.

That being said, all because a joke, or a punchline has expired, doesn't make it beyond a point. Something that Marcus understands, though I think his example is weak. Instead I'm going to point to the South Park Episode "With apologies to Jesse Jackson", an episode who's entire joke is just, saying a slur. And the response, was mostly positive. It would get its usual pearl clutches from the contemporary version of twitter, Parents Advocacy Groups, but the joke was done, not just with good intent, but with care. Something that is deeply important on a topic that potentially opens wounds, and has a beyond its time category, much like a minstrel show. All this, is to reach my one sentence conclusion: Jokes do have an expiration date, and they really ought to, but care, and being more than a shock jock, can ignore it.