I think she had some okay ideas that weren't especially well-delivered or supported.
She was going somewhere that might have been productive in pointing to a glaring inconsistency in comedians defending comedy as something that effects intended political/discursive consequences, but somehow never runs the risk of effecting unintended political/discursive consequences. What would have been a better approach than snark and off-the-wall strawman attacks ("Wouldn't it be funny if we all raped this girl" is not the kind of "joke" Norton, or anyone, is defending or even telling) is if she just asked him, "Can rape jokes affect how people think about rape?" Or, more broadly, "How does a joke change how we think about its subject/punch line?"
Her point about minstrelsy was a good one! Yes, Norton is right, that kind of humor was a product/reflection of social conditions, but it also helped reproduce those conditions.
It's like that Orwell example of the drunk whose drinking has consequences, and those consequences lead to more drinking, which has more consequences. Neither the drinking nor the fallout is exclusively cause or exclusively effect.
Bookmarks