Alan De Botton Humorists

Alan de Botton’s views on the vital role of humorists in conveying unpopular or difficult to say perspectives is mostly incorrect. While it is undeniable that humorists are allowed to say some things other people normally can’t, the role of humorists in society is not vital because of these messages, nor is this immunity all-powerful in protecting these humorists from backlash. The vital function of humorists in society is not to be some sort of activist (society has enough of those already), but rather to be funny—to pursue their chief aim of entertainment, and to make people laugh.
Although some humorists attempt to convey a message about society at large, the main focus of most humorists is to entertain and not effect societal change. The
I had to create some bloody material – I had a theatre booked.’” The whole point of humorists is to entertain. Indeed, if John Oliver or Tim Minchin didn’t “create some bloody material”, if they were ever out of jokes or out of funny things to say, they would soon be out on the streets and out of a job. To say that the chief aim of a humorist is not to entertain is to say that the primary goal of a doctor is not to cure ills, that the main objective of a runner is not to win the race, that the principle purpose of a teacher is not to educate his students. To say that the chief aim of a humorist is to convey “messages [that are] dangerous or impossible to state directly”, as Botton does, is to say that the primary goal of a doctor is to ensure patients have a long, happy life, that the main objective of a runner is to assure aspiring athletes that they, too, can take home the gold, that the principal purpose of a teacher is to inspire students to pursue their passions and help others along
He is not immune. Contrary to Botton’s claims, humorists cannot convey unpopular messages with complete impunity because while they are granted immunity from most persecution, there are limits—that is, when the people or thing humorists are making fun of don’t recognize the humorist’s message or intent as ‘a harmless joke’. When humor is not recognized as humor, or when humor is not found to be funny, the capricious protection granted to humorists by their jokes disappears into the mist. One such case is the tragic tale of Charlie Hebdo. Charlie Hebdo is the name of a satirical magazine.
And finally, because of the aforementioned points, humorists cannot have the vital role in society that Botton says they do—unless by ‘vital role’ Botton meant the humorist’s ability to provide people with