Today, We Are All Eaten

No one thought that cannibalism was going to become a problem. At least not a problem that we were going to have to deal with ideologically. I was probably being naïve, but I always figured that eating humans was clearly enough discouraged and recognized as not reflecting American values. So when you come across three stories in one week about cannibalism, maybe it's time to step back and remind folks that, 'Hey— we don't do that here.' Because if we don't stop this now, it could get out of hand.

What? That's not necessary? No one thinks it's OK? It'll never be OK? And you think it's ridiculous to get serious making sure people know cannibalism is wrong?

But what if denying cannibalism is the new cannibalism?

I wonder if it would be funny to make a satirical public service announcement against cannibalism. Andy Samberg made one (watch it here), but I think we can do better. First, it can be better by being funnier. I don't want to be critical, because Samberg's was pretty funny. That explains some of the laughs it got. But it wasn't funny enough. Offensive jokes have to be super funny, or else they're offensive. Trust me.

Also, we have to make sure that we know what our point is. Dylan Gadino reminds us that in addition to being funny, "cringe acts" need a "purpose". It also helps if the performer offers "valuable commentary" like George Carlin always did. You know how all jokes work better with commentary.

Just to be safe, let's make sure the commentary is explicitly stated. In these cannibalistic times it's not enough to let commentary remain merely implicit in the comedic material. So just to be clear, our humorous PSA should probably have a disclaimer either at the bottom of the screen, or it should provide a link to a sensitively worded treatise on how our willingness to make a joke about cannibalism is in no way an endorsement of cannibalism, and is in no way an argument for greater acceptance of cannibalism nor should it be taken as agreement with cannibalist acts or statements.

The direct and non-ironic commentary must accompany the Escheresque irony of a situation in which an argument might be misunderstood as an endorsement of cannibalist ideas, even tho the argument ostensibly condemns cannibalism. That confusion is understandable, because making light of a serious situation can too easily be seen as indifference to someone's suffering. And now that cannibals are on the loose, sensitivity to the suffering of others is more important than ever.

Maybe we can explain that unlike Samberg's obviously ignorant PSA, our fake PSA about cannibalism is carefully satirizing the ease and self-assurance of a lot of celebrities when they take obvious sides in ridiculous debates. We should come up with some statement about how PSAs are sometimes just lame PR strategies, with celebrities even cheaply promoting their latest PSA on late-night talk shows. Let's make it clear that we're also satirizing how PSAs so often clumsily combine heartfelt messages about important and somber issues with schlocky jokes, bad writing, stiff acting, and rough editing.

But most importantly, we need the commentary to explain just how much we're against cannibalism. We need to remind people that we still think cannibalism is very bad. Because bad writing is just kinda bad for comedy. But no good joke has ever worked by being insensitive and insincere.