{"id":2237,"date":"2021-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-01-12T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/wptest\/2023\/09\/06\/why-did-the-duck-cross-the-line-an-exploration-of-offensive-humour-laughter-as-a-response-and-duboisian-double-consciousness\/"},"modified":"2021-01-12T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2021-01-12T00:00:00","slug":"why-did-the-duck-cross-the-line-an-exploration-of-offensive-humour-laughter-as-a-response-and-duboisian-double-consciousness-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/2021\/01\/12\/why-did-the-duck-cross-the-line-an-exploration-of-offensive-humour-laughter-as-a-response-and-duboisian-double-consciousness-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Did The Duck Cross The Line? An Exploration of Offensive Humour, Laughter as a Response, and DuBoisian \u2018Double Consciousness\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This project aims to explore the nature of offensive humour, using readings of W.E.B Du Bois\u2019 theory of \u2018double consciousness\u2019 (a duel perspective originally felt by black Americans) as well as the three laughter theories (as told by Hobbes, Kant and Freud) as a framework for presenting the main arguments regarding taboo topics within the comedic realm, these being 1.) in support of censorship within humour, with the exception of oppositional satire from the oppressed, and 2.) in support of a freedom within laughter and comedy, as per their supposed nature. I aim to ultimately offer a new perspective regarding this argument, expanding on ideas seen within my chosen concepts.<\/p>\n<p>OBJECT: Offensive Humour and laughter as a response, and how this may link to censorship\/freedom of speech<\/p>\n<p>TERRITORY: Ethics. (Analysing whether offensive humour is \u2018right\u2019 to use)<\/p>\n<p>CONCEPTS: Interpretations of DuBoisian \u2018Double Consciousness\u2019, laughter theories (as stated by Hobbes, Kant, Freud)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Flora Allinson-Davies, 2021, Stage 2<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8792,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[311,22,128],"tags":[224,21,296],"class_list":["post-2237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-311","category-abstracts","category-stage-2-abstracts","tag-comedy","tag-ethics","tag-offence"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8792"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2237"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2237\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}