 Daniel, yeah, vamos a comenzar. Okay, por favor, entren, vamos a comenzar. Please take your seats. We're going to start. Meanwhile, a brief announcement in English for those who didn't get it in Spanish. We have to leave at five minutes to five to catch the buses that are going to take us to Moac to see the performances there or to El Foto José Luis Ibañez to see the performances there. Okay, so please sit down because we're going to start. Okay, I'm going to start the introduction even though people are starting or coming in. Las vidas políticas del humor. Este panel explora el trabajo político que el humor logra o puede lograr en diferentes contextos políticos y culturales, prestando particular atención a la risa de los poderosos y las formas como ésta se usa para tornar su mundo al revés. The ways that this is used in order to turn the world inside out. Ahora, tenemos cinco personas, cuatro personas muy destacadas. Four, very well, no. People here, Stephen Duncan, he teaches media and culture at NYUI here. He has written and published six books covering intersection between culture and politics. He is currently the co-founder and the co-director for the Center of Artistic Activism and Organization Dedicated to research and education, helping activists to create as artists and artists to create strategies similar to what the, similar to those that activists use. Next we have Mita Slava, she's the founding member of the performance group, self-ful, she holds a PhD in philosophy by this university. She's a full-time researcher in the research, the theatrical center, the local city, and she courted nights the luminarity and performance basis and a master's degree, she has written a book called Master Performers, whereby she analyzes philosophically the support of the, let's think again, we had Lopore Garden, she's the author of the professor and performer and Davis, you're going to be talking to me in a second, Tactical Performance, Electoral Gorilla Theater, whose performances include economic music, Orwell's War, La Guerra de Orwell, Possible Pasts, Santiago Nueve Once, Los Pasados Posibles, and Santiago Haymarket, Exit 11, a fair fight. And finally, we have Danelle, she's been empowered by only a sister class of friends, the romance languages in UNICEF, she received a PhD in Spanish and Portuguese from NYU in 2015. Her thesis is called Interdrag Queens and Black Face, Contemporary Black Face and Drag Performance from the, and I end these to Jamaica. And I like to experiment a little bit with the panels, we used to experiment a little bit with the panels, without a route, without the jobs or without the panels, and I launched a provocative question, and I asked them to answer the provocative questions, I'm going to ask them. And the question is, what is the relationship between power and humor? Is it true that humor breaks all barriers, and everything's fair play? Who laughs? And who do we laugh at? Is it true that humor has to target? Do you think of the traitor's violence? Is there such a thing as a national humor? Is it true that humor always works in transferable, or is it linguistic, cultural, national lines? Was it rational? What was raised and gender? If I create, if I launch a joke in one context, would this be understood in another context, or would it be received as a insult? Who has been used to all use a national voice to promote stereotypes? Well, in humor as a group of women, but with boundaries that allows us to understand that some of us mean, or is crossing those boundaries, and whoever allows us to discover the boundaries to see, how far can we watch, what can we tolerate, and what is it that we can do? It's important to offer one. And so I'll just start passing the microphone, we'll start with Stephen. Gracias. So just listening to Jesusa, or perhaps the better way to say it is the power of humor in politics. Because I think the first rule of guerrilla warfare is this. You need to know your terrain, and use it to your advantage. And today's stories and spectacles is the terrain of the artist. And Jesusa has shown us what it's like to be a guerrilla warrior in this new terrain. So how do we, well how does it actually work? So I'm gonna put forth some ideas about how humor works politically and how it can work politically, particularly at this moment in history. So the power of humor is often that it points out the absurdity of the normal, the taken for granted, the everyday. And that's as true for political humor as apolitical humor. But what happens if the everyday is absurd? How does humor work then? Or rather, how does humor work now in this political moment? So satire, and I'll start with satire. Is a politically potent form of humor. An example that we probably all know of is Jonathan Swift's modest proposal, in which he proposed that the problem of the Irish rural poor might be solved by selling their babies to the rich for food. And this works politically because it goes through a couple operations. One, it extended the logic of the British empire's policies regarding their colonies. Two, the solution he proposes is so absurd, eating the poor, that it cast the normality of the British empire as absurd as well. And then it assumes that the audiences will see this absurdity and whether to use modern parlance awareness raised will resist these absurd policies of empire. But how does satire work today? When the absurdity of the policies of the national fascists and the leaders who propose them are so obvious. What is there to satirize? They satirize themselves. So take another form of humor. That of the fool, the jester, the clown, or the hayoka. The politics of their humor often lay in their ability to use their foolishness to make a fool of those in power. But again, what if our leaders, and I speak this as a resident of the United States, are openly fools? Does the clown have the same power within that context, in that political terrain? So if I stop here, this analysis ends in despair. Lo siento. But I wanna end with hope. Because what I've described above is not all that humor does. It doesn't just function as critique. It can also provide a vision. It can work in a prophetic vein. The clown doesn't just show up the leader to be a fool. They perform a vision of the world which operates according to radically different norms and hierarchies and values of the normal one we inhabit today. That is to say, they turn the world upside down. Or, more appropriately in this context, what they do is they turn it inside out. And there's another phase to satire as well. Because the model of satire we are most used to might be one of critiquing power as it is, as Swift did. But there's also another form which we might call the prophetic satire which challenges the logic of power by envisioning power as it should be. And for a quick example, I wanna turn to our friends here at the Encuentro, the Yes Men, who appeared at the BBC as spokespeople for Dow Chemical to take full financial and moral responsibility for the Bhopal disaster. And with that, they were at one and the same time critiquing the normal behavior of corporations. We take no responsibility for our actions. But also doing something else. They were imagining a world turned inside out in which corporations cared for people and took responsibilities for their actions. Now, that's not to say what I've called critical satire doesn't have an implied alternative embedded within it. It does. It wouldn't work as satire if it didn't. But that implied alternative is dependent upon a knowing audience that can imagine or perhaps have a memory of an alternative to the present. And I'm not sure we possess that anymore. It may be lost. And so maybe what we need to do is make the implicit explicit. And I wanna end my comments here with a challenge. For us as artists and as activists and as artistic activists who are gonna operate in this new political terrain to move away from a humor that merely critiques or ridicules or raises awareness of problems of today. And instead, as Jesusa has shown us, create forms of humor that inspire us to imagine the worlds we want to build for tomorrow. That's it. Hola, buenas tardes. A partir de las preguntas que esta Diana nos envió para empezar a discutir, yo planteé a partir de esas tres preguntas que espero poder exponer rápidamente o al menos en alguna de sus aspectos. I hope to cover other questions. The first question, what does humor, at the same workplace, do in the act of practice, what as a power of laughter and what has respect for the environment to have to respect this and be able to share it with a box of cider? What I'm doing while at the performance I'm dedicated to researching from a research called Transphilosophia Cénica, where I do circulate the seminary with the scriptural and the laboratory of Cénica and I work with, I try to land ideas in the art of action. Partiendo de la idea de que el art de acción es un acontecimiento pensante y que en el sentido en que es un acontecimiento pensante debe ser un acontecimiento crítico. Me pronunció a partir de lo que oímos hace y me permito con la discusión que se armó aquí con Jesús a Rodríguez. Yo no puedo concebir, pero eso es mi visión personal, un artista que no sea disidente y que necesite del sistema para ser artista. Nada más dejo eso. Entonces, bueno, hemos pensado en mi formación yo como filósofa que la filosofía siempre es un asunto de seriedad y que hablar en serio es un llamado de consciencia filosófica. Y, bueno, estamos acostumbrados en este reparto de lugares a asumir que el territorio del discurso serio es la académica, es la academia y que el arte nunca es un discurso serio. A mí me parece que uno de los discursos más serios que puede haber justamente es justamente el del arte porque el arte tiene un poder disolvente tremendo. Sí, lo mismo en la filosofía y por eso la filosofía hay que desencajarla del ámbito académico para regresarle a su capacidad de transformar la realidad. Entonces, bueno, si yo estoy pensando que la filosofía tiene más que ver con un pensar y crear fuera de las normas y que tiene que ver con un pensar que critica la repetición de los esquemas, evidentemente tiene que cuestionar modelos simplificadores. A mí me parece que el arte es un ejercicio filosofante en ese sentido. ¿Qué quiere estoy diciendo con que es un acontecimiento filosofante que tiene el poder y tiene el deber incluso de disolver las verdades absolutas? A mí me parece que el humor juega un papel interesante en el siguiente sentido porque voy a hablar previamente de lo que es el valor para poder llegar a lo que yo quiero decir. El humor es básicamente la capacidad de alejarse de un valor normativo. El humor es justamente un ejercicio del pensamiento que tiene una característica muy propia, que es que el humor no procede por argumentación en su crítica, sino que procede de una forma acontecimental. Es algo que simplemente sucede en ese momento, precisamente porque cuando tratamos de hacer coincidir el valor con el ser, que es la forma en la que se nos enseña a pensar normativamente, el mundo nos muestra todo el tiempo que está mucho más adelante, mucho más atrás, o antes, o después, o nunca que el valor. Es decir, el valor y el ser no coinciden normalmente. Y cuando el valor y el ser no coinciden, por eso nos reímos porque lo que se está rompiendo es la lógica epistémica, las lógicas culturales, las lógicas de repartición de los lugares, las lógicas que dividen a los hombres de las mujeres y que asignan los lugares con los valores que tenemos que asumir. Entonces, en ese sentido, ¿qué es lo que hay que suspender en la formación académica, en la forma de pensamiento? Y creo que por eso el arte es una gran herramienta, porque la seriedad, la seriedad es, si la queremos definir, la adhesión del sujeto a un valor propuesto, esa adhesión implica una hora de exigencias que exigen que ese sujeto se converte de determinadas maneras. Y esa hora de exigencias, todo de adhesión, es decir, un compromiso íntimo del sujeto con la forma en la que debe comportarse. Y, por supuesto, que eso va a responder a la moral del rebaño, como dirían Nietzsche. La moral del rebaño es tremendamente poderosa y opera en todos los lugares y en todos los momentos, la ideología. It's an ideology. It's a machine that works itself for power. And we are serious when we adhere to that value. And we're part of that flock. We need to stop taking ourselves seriously and we need to stop taking ourselves seriously and the heart is so old. And so whether or say that the child must behave such a way that the husband must behave in such a way we need to be safe that we not really need to stop taking ourselves such a serious thing. I say, well, things like that because I've always been like that. Now, I think he actually does so well, and he was earlier, and it teaches us how to laugh. This is a first to call task because it will frustrate the efficacy of art. And that's what art does, we want to frustrate the efficacy of the system and value not of art. This is a correction, and it cracks the system and I'm worried that an artist is worried of money because it's not going to receive money from this thing to be impressed. Where is that artist's desire to create? And this issue of not taking one's self-serve states that we need to actually grab yourself around in the area of the issue and not but the existence cannot deal with why it was reality. We have to stop thinking in that direction. We have to stop thinking that way and not thinking. And, for example, mayness as a result of research and think and understand things and take things to heart and be and subvert yourself in practice and play with concepts which I believe is very important. You don't have to play, play is very important. Play and that's so weak and we just are, but our role as an artist is to laugh. But the fact that I'm a researcher and artist I'm not going to laugh about that, but if I want to define myself, but that game is the game is the help by the person that is actually giving these scholarships and it's the one that's giving out, but not with a way in a fair way, such a humor needs to be understood as the destructive and the critical function at this point is to speak to about actuality and the capacity of that free spirit given in order to philosophize with a creative force so you can create, produce, construct, with and create that way in that area of where our humor is a protective action, talking about changing and modifying its reality. And it's a good sense where we see because they have been improved, the goals that we work out, whether we're given, we have to put a disrepair in our mindsets and we have to understand that sharing is different. We need to open different programs. And what makes laugh invisible? What does laugh to make visible? What makes visible the indemnificance? It's a power to desacralize. It's a power that works. And the last good ones about it is profanity, that's why she makes it, was covered with the depth of the slug. And what does this mean as a researcher? Have a soul that we need to understand with humor. We need to apply creatively the critical role that will allow us, it will enable us to be in the origin on a possible stage. And understand where are these ideals? Where do they come from? Why do we act the way we act? And we need to push through these supreme ideals and the lack that does this to open the will to experience events, to face the serious mess and the happiness of spirit whereby truth seems to be obvious and natural. And when that we want to stop to follow, and it's precisely the obedience, the opinions to take ourselves seriously that we are what we are not. This is exactly what makes Ange and Justus have a real life. It doesn't create a world that occurs as you get to because we're all from all the boundaries to that which we are as to end by voice. And I say that I am against the academic fear and I'm doing some work in Spanish. I'm not about descriptive and indiscriptive, which is one who has ties to his, it smells like a tightwad. And the tightwad has no humor, it's an attitude of that thought of the thinking and does not understand of the awareness between family and the world itself. Well, I mean, humor is trans ideological, right? It's political police, labor camp guards, Klansmen tell jokes to each other to get through the busy day of repression, right? And maybe to assuage their own conscience, it's a social lubricant. Humor, it doesn't go just to one side, right? So when we think about it, we think about the specificity of, every joke has a vector, it has a direction, it has a color or a tone or an intensity. So when we say, oh, I'm just joking, we can say, yeah, that's the joke of the bully who doesn't even want to admit he was insulting you. We have different categories of jokes we can look at. And of course, we can say that the right tends to create certain kinds of jokes and we can categorize and analyze them. But of course, humor doesn't belong to any team. It's a tool. And it can also bring us together, obviously. Political humor, of course, you may not know that you have a lot of ideological friends in a space and when someone tells a certain joke and lots of people laugh, we all laugh together, we now we're conspiring. Conspiring like literally meaning breathing together. We're doing that laugh breathing together and we hear each other doing it. So, oh, I thought that was, oh, I always, I thought that guy was a clown too. Oh, good, you know? I didn't realize we all felt the same way. But you've also probably been in the same place where a joke divides a crowd and some people start doing the snake thing. Ssss, and other people laughing, oh, should I have laughed? Well, now we learned something there. That was instructive. This is one of those jokes that divides people. So, when I think about the political side of the joke, it's thinking about, well, what's the vector? What's the angle? What's the target? Every joke has a target. So then I wanted to think about the role of humor in our, in a social movement's repertoire. And it does make me think of something as undignified as the clown army, of which I was a member as Colonel of Truth. And we mobilized and at our best, we had a phalanx of 150 civil disobedience trained militant clowns. And our bodies were getting in the way of certain social processes, but also I think we frustrated riot police and the meme has sort of spread. So I'm seeing it frustrate fascists in Finland and other places. I think part of it is that you make yourself look ridiculous when you yell at a clown. And so when you're really repressing a clown with riot sticks, it costs more, it shouldn't, this is wrong, ethically, but there's a higher political price to clubbing a clown. And I don't agree with it. It's just, this is physics, I guess, I don't know. Political physics. So when we think about sort of, we expose ourselves to a critique too, however, when we start clowning on politics and we sometimes hear that, there are people I tremendously admire such as Jesus who, you know, sometimes she'll get a little grief for her amazing political humor. But I don't know, I respect the skill of that very much. And I think that when you are accused of trivializing an issue by making humor around it, our mantra in the clown army was serious but not solemn. And that was a great motivator for us. You can be deadly serious while being ludicrous, right? In fact, you've invested a lot of energy in this angle on the serious take of your critique. But of course, for any long-term social movement organizing, storytelling is vital. We have to have storytelling. We have to build our own counterculture or our own resistant culture. And humor is a key part of storytelling. So it just fits in with the larger picture of social movement organizing. And of course, there are tactical elements to that just on the ground when your forces meet their forces, be this a nonviolent confrontation or what have you. I really think that sometimes mobilized humor made physical in the body. It can, like I was mentioning with the clients, it can raise the cost of repression. It doesn't stop, thank you. It doesn't stop the repression, but it can raise the cost of the repression. And when you set up the dynamic, like with Abbott and Costello, you have the funny man and the straight man. When you create a dynamic in a public place where the repressor is the straight man in your comedy routine. And you set them up and then their punchline, everything they do, you have the punchline for it. And you make it funny, right? You're sort of outflanking them using humor. That's this kind of tactical interaction that uses humor and instrumentalizes it. But so that's all the tactical side of this and tactical surprise, but I would also point out that humor, I'm gonna put your marks because I think humor is the side of the oppressed. And it can function that way to help people get through. And make sustainability possible under oppression for future resistance. And so when we laugh together, we know physiologically it opens up the mind and the lungs oxygenate. And now perhaps we can receive more from each other, more information from each other. And then we can also create more and we can do it for a longer term and we can stay limber. We can stick and move like a good boxer and keep moving your feet because the humor is helping your body to clean itself out, you know what I mean? Because I think we have to move faster because we don't have the force that the state has or the corporation. So my last thought as far as tying that together, the use of humor is that permaculture, that wonderful idea of permaculture, it applies to the body of the activist as well. And so it's important to look for ways including humor to allow the body of the activist or the social movement writ large to sustain itself through difficult times such as now. Thanks. So I'm going to answer the question, I'm gonna answer the question that was really about the relationship between Hugh Murray, San Paolo. I don't know why I'm getting in. Can you hear me? Yeah? No, can you hear me at the back? Okay, good. Is that functioning or not? Can you see the images? Okay, we're working on it. Okay, so I wanted to really talk about or enter this conversation by thinking about a couple of controversies that have popped up across the Americas around racial caricature. So some of the images that you're not able to, I'm not, we're not able to show yet, but one is kind of the controversy that arose recently in Colombia around that blackface character called El Saludado Me Culta. Everybody knows about that, se ve? Ahora si, okay. Can you just press play? Van a salir algunas imágenes de caricaturas. We're gonna see some cartoons. One was this guy in Bolivia, there was a controversy around a caricature that answers called El Tundiquin, which a black cop and black groups mobilized and said that they weren't comfortable with it. Similarly in Peru, there was a huge kind of debate around a TV character called El Negro Mama, where black groups, Afro-Peruvians got together and rallied and so on and so forth. There were several moments. So I'm interested in thinking about the moments in which humor serves as a site of contestation. And I want to think about why it is, what is this fight, what's at stake in this fight? And the first is to think about the role of humor as racial humor is being grounded in historical processes of racial formation, that the jokes that we make or how we think and talk about humor, the ideas that we have about blackness and indigeneity are grounded in actual processes that demarcated where particular groups of people lived, what were the material conditions under which black and brown people lived across the Americas, right? And they're tied to histories of trafficking particular bodies across the Americas. So what it is at stake in these fights is really about how we deal with the legacies of histories of slavery, of genocide, right? So what happens when dethroning the serious is actually an assertion of racial power that's grounded in kind of processes of historical racial formation. Me plico, se entiende, what is on the side of me, right? Okay, so that's one. The second thing I want to think about is the ways in which humor, when we think about these fights about humor, we're thinking about humor is not, when I talk about racial humor, I'm not talking about an individual joke teller. I'm thinking about humor as a public practice through which particular collectives are formed, right? And these collectives are formed based on moments of identification. And in racial jokes, identification is facilitated through shared ideas about race, shared ideas about blackness, shared ideas about queerness, shared ideas about indigeneity. So what is at stake in these fights, right? Is an insistence that we can reformulate the collective in ways that reimagine where blackness, indigeneity, brownness fits, right? What are the ways in which we want to organize such collectives? So I'll leave it there and look forward to conversations and questions. Bueno, primero gracias a ustedes. Thank you so much for actually responding to these provocations in your own way and giving us so much to think about. We're hoping that we'll have a good discussion here. That's why we wanted these to be short. Gracias por darnos tanto que pensar y por pensar en estas preguntas que yo les diré. We thank you for giving us so much to think and for responding to the questions. Part of a violent formation of subjectivities that just normalizes this kind of oppression to race as, sorry, to humor as a form, as Larry says. In a way, a minoritarian practice that will allow us to give us space to be quick, to be agile, to be able to respond in situations in which there's huge discrepancy of power. So we have a huge gamut here to discuss. I would just very briefly ask, if any of you have a very quick question you'd like to throw out to each other, not to answer, we don't, I think we should just answer it here together, but a question that, or a response to something that somebody said that you would like to throw out before we open it up. He says, yeah, we don't have to respond to it now. I'd like to respond to things together. I know I don't have any, I think everybody was a bomb. Who's that? So they say. Everybody's a bomb. Everybody was good. Yeah, oh, it was good. Thank you. Any opinions? Any comments? No, no more something that you'd like to say Anything you'd like to say in order to respond to what you have heard of the panel members? We will not discuss this now, but this is somehow to trigger the discussion. Yes, here I would say that from the perspective that you gave us with the question posted to us, in regards to how humor is a way to normalize the state of things, also that mocks others as a result of superiority. So I think it is an important issue, but I would like here to underscore the dissolving power of laughter and humor before these absolute categories that is established by our teams among people. I think that perhaps I would invite us to think what is the dissolving political power of humor before precisely the Gregorian values. Well, what I want to open up of supporting power systems and also to dissolve we open up to questions from the floor. Who has the microphone? Here, we have the microphone here. Marlene, you have a question. I'm going to stop here because the line is going to end, to ask a question. I think humor is a tool. Who said humor is a tool? And the tool can serve as a tool to be used to in alt-zero or to criticize something that has an ethics on one side or to be mocked and mocked on the other side. So to talk about humor as it is a single thing of any ideological side, we really have to consider what is the aspect with which humor is real and depending on what kind of humor it is, which is the criticism that humor wants to launch or the world's sad humor wants to be able to stream the set, the joys it wants to bring, the community wishes to bring, and to see with this perspective structure of this type of humor, how it is done. So a sitcom on TV is not the same as a sad satire. So what Daniel was saying, of these cultural practices that are specifically made to mock the party, for example, how do we talk about the ethics, Sarah, with which this is built? That is my question. Any other comment, question, we'll take note of your question, and then we'll allow the members of the panel to respond. If there are questions you can come to the side please. If you have any question, you could come here please. Hello, my name is Stefano, and I would like to present something that is happening right now where I live and why I'm here. And there are two characters that are very well known. They're basically gay homosexuals, gay stereotypes to make comedy. What is really ironic is that they use basically that narrative of a person that is taken to a deep homo-sexualization to make these torture clips, to make these jokes. So it is truly dangerous, other things like this that are happening in our group that has been talked in some way. Initiatives to criticize, we have found that difficult to, not to be acting as censors with those people that are feeling the freedom of strategy. So I mean, how do we respond? I want to have these strategies in response to this time of year. I mean, should we stop it? This is criticized from the academic sector. I mean, what do you have to say? One more question, and then we'll take other questions. Yes, I'd like to thank you very much for your presentations. I would like to ask or perhaps to promote your answers in regards to broadly used schemes, some power and mechanisms as ways to launch our dynamics or the way in which we understand them and how power works and how the actions that are against power work. And I mean, there's power that imposes, remains and also the ones that resist it. I think we talked about the semi-me counter, the end of criticism, the end of those models that only put us in a situation of resisting after camera. And I once would like to add there seem to be certain thinking trends with notion of subject and other forms of setting the steps of subjective elements. We've been outside and on the top of the bottom undecided the power and the ones that are supporting it but they create their own universes and within them, humor is key. But it is not really supporting the evil power more resisting in a good way and evil power but there are different ways of thinking this dynamic. And I imagine that humor is key in this ways of conceiving this relationship also. Well, thank you. I think I have heard three things for the panel here to respond. So the first has to do with ethics of power. The ethics of humor, not power. The ethics of humor, not power. And the second question is there's censorship. What do we do to start acting as censors of things that we consider offensive? And the third is to think about humor as something that flows, that is flexible and that could be a part of different points and moments and places. So the floor is all yours. Yes. So I will start thinking about the question about ethics of power. And the question of censorship. So one of the big kind of debates that's happening for example in Bolivia around the Tundike is that a lot of black groups have called for outright prohibition of it. So then we enter in kind of that space of censorship. So I want to first say two things. One is in relationship to how we determine what is ethical has to do with what are the kind of material conditions under which particular groups of people live. What access do such groups have to representing themselves, right? So for example, in the case of Bolivia or in the case of Peru or equally when there was a kind of huge debate in Miami about a play Las Tres Duelas where the woman black top and Afro Latinos, Afro Cubans got together and organized around it. One of the big problem is that you're not operating within a schema in which black groups have equal access to representing themselves, right? And so that's one and then two is you're operating in a context in which these are minoritarian groups. So when we think about the ethics of humor you have to ask yourself where do these particular groups where does the butt of the joke fit within larger configurations of societal power? Where do they fit in relationship to systems of equality in a particular society? That for me is what governs the ethics of how we joke and who we joke about. Yes, okay. Now the second thing in regards to censorship is there's kind of a big claim and you always get this pushback that oh now we can't do this dance anymore freedom of expression, blah, blah, blah, blah. But I want to ask what is a conceptualization of freedom that we're thinking about when we talk about censorship? Do if, because if we're thinking about freedom we have to be operating in a context in which the people that are, oh yeah, oh yeah man. The people that are, can I switch? Yeah, whatever. I mean I love the feedback. I'm gonna be a rappel. It's not gonna be a feedback. I've always wanted to be a rappel and you know, but any stereotypes of blackness that I can traffic in on right now. No, and so I would say that prior to the problem is how we conceptualize freedom, right? Because when you talk about censorship it's almost as if, oh now that we can no longer make fun of black people our freedom has been so stifled. You know what are the terms, what do we mean and understand freedom to be if this is the case? I think the question we need to ask rather than when we are faced with, when we have these moments of public reckoning around the ethics of a particular joke is what exactly and how are we coming to define freedom and where does this definition of freedom fit within larger histories of racial formation? I was just thinking about the ethics of the humor and what do you do? You're stuck with the situation. Someone's done something completely disgusting and oppressive and what do you do? And I don't, there's not one answer of course. It depends on the scenario. We have that classic question of ethics. Are you punching up or punching down? You know with your humor a lot of you probably heard that expression, but sometimes you can outflank the joke with another joke and it's something to think about as I don't think it's always possible but someone I admire very much, comedian Omar Abdullah who wrote a dissertation about comedians of color and yes, anding racism and I'm a fan and he was in a improv group that just happened to be all white, what do you know? Except for him and he's a South Asian Muslim gentleman and somehow in the improv, we're just improvising on stage in front of an audience and we just always make you the terrorist. I don't know, it's just, I'm just riffing man. I'm just, it's just, you know, right? So he's like, wow, it's always racist. That's wild. Okay, what am I gonna do? It's so predictable I can make a plan even though it's improv. That makes a statement too, right? And like you get actually planned for yourself. I know it's gonna happen sometime in the next three gigs, right? So finally it happened, he was ready. He said, the guy's one of his colleagues who he didn't feel like calling out, he could have called him out. That would have been a legitimate other way to do it but he didn't, he just waited until it happened again and he goes, okay, the scene is starting. You're a terrorist and he just said, that's right. I'm Timothy McVeigh and for the rest of the scene because that's how improv works, all these white comedians had to treat, had to get into, again, Timothy McVeigh and the humor and they had to, that's part, obviously you're gonna mock white supremacy and white terrorism because that's, hey, but we're just, I don't know, they just came out, you know. So that you can't always do that. That's kind of like, he's brilliant and it was a situation but I'll always remember that anecdote, hopefully will be published soon and you will do that I hope because it's, to me it's an example of something that sometimes you can do is to stick and move. Again, I'm sorry with this bot, not even into Bloodsport but the boxing thing of the big guys coming at you and you step back and you counterpunched it on the side, non-violently. Okay. It requires to ethics and humor. Let me take the area where humor comes from. It comes from a hypothetical theory of liquids or fluids in your body, fluids in your body. This is something we have to take over. I thought that they used to talk about the fact that the human body in order to be healthy they had to have a balance in all of the humors which are the fluids that run through your body. So you have to say, when you have balance, all of these humors, then you have to say that person is healthy and we have to recall that health and happiness among the ancient Greeks was cybernetic and he would talk about, for example, the characteristics and the balances that every type of band would have that creates a specific character. I find quite interesting to see how this term, humor, goes through what is medical to what we're talking today. And I think the whole group that is talking about hypothesis of use to say that there were four types of man, phlegmatic, sanguine, the other one was the black bilis and the yellow ones. So I would say to you that in ethics, we are thinking from the problem of perspective, ethics has nothing to do with principles but with perspectives. So I find that ethics has more to do with the dissolution of principles and the capacity of looking at other principles. And I believe that humor is no longer a humor. When there are boundaries or limits to humor, there is no longer humor. Where the humor can be done in such a way that one can make a joke and the other can defend himself because it's the other one. And the other can defend themselves because they have certain successes. Opportunity because they're not the dissolving power of humor is altered to think that humor has a principle and there are things we can laugh up and then we decide what is it that you can laugh up and when we decide what we can laugh up and this is why it gives me everything over again what Nietzsche used to call optical moral dimensions. What I find is that humor is sarcastic, humor is disolutive, and humor is a moral. And what we have to think is not only if we are laughing or not, but what is really giving, if we're poking that master, if we can laugh in a country that you can laugh and they show some of us what I would propose is a kind of human human relationship, some kind of a planet when you can go back to the other and laughing and other things don't, and I think that this is a tragic element of laughter. And well, you know this is to apply the wisdom of rocks. You know what a rock said to another rock? You know something? Life is tough, life is hard. That's what one rock said to the other. Humor always has an ethical dimension. Insofar, it always takes place within an ethical framework. You know, you always have to ask yourself what according to my values and the values I want to see in the future is ethically acceptable to laugh about or to make a joke about? And, it's an and, yes and, it is also a tactical decision when we're talking about it as a tool for struggle. That is part of what we do with humor has to do with what we want to do with that humor. And let's, I want to go back again to the person who brought up the example of what do you do about these homophobic comedians. And as Larry said, I mean, one thing you can do and it's certainly appropriate sometimes is shut it down. That is not funny. We don't do that. At other times you can defeat humor with humor. And then the question becomes, how do you decide? And there we can learn from comics. Comics try out their material. If you ever go into a comedy club, it's incredibly painful because sometimes things just bomb, right? And the great thing we can learn from comics and artists is we're gonna fail sometimes. And we learn, we try that out, that did not work. It didn't get the results we wanted. And so we pivot and we shift. But within that ethical framework that we've decided upon for ourselves and perhaps our group. Well, thank you, I think we have time for two more questions. And they're gonna be like lightning. Ah, perdón. Jesusa goes first. Jesusa y didanue, y así cerramos. Jesusa y didanue y Jesusa porque está ahí más cerrida. Well, okay, I'll go first. A noche que estábamos en el teatro Varel Vicio en el primer trasnocheo, tuve la experiencia de, y recordé que hace tiempo que no tenía la experiencia de ver a tantos cuerpos reunidos riendo reneticamente. Y me hizo pensar en cómo hay una risa distinta. Que es esa risa medial. La cantidad de veces al día que tecleamos en el WhatsApp. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Y sí, sí, sí. No? La risa, la risa de los memes. Y pensaba justora que hablaba, me deslaba sobre el cuerpo y se tocaba un poco el tema también de cómo se oxigena más el cerebro, como produce cosas, como tenemos más información del otro. Como, esta risa es una risa que no es, no tiene una energía centrifuga, sino centrípeta. Es como una risa atorada en el fondo, silenciosa. No sé cuántas veces cerrían todos aquí frente a un meme realmente acarcajada, amplia. Entonces pensaba como, ¿qué implica esta otra risa? No? ¿Cómo ven ustedes? ¿Cómo piensan ustedes esta medialidad de la risa? En las redes sociales, en otros lugares. That happens in social networks and in twitters and in so many other elements. So, well, thank you. Let's go now to Jesusa. Bueno, preguntarles porque a mí siempre me sirvió mucho una recomendación de Carlos Monsivais. Cuando ocurrió aquí una explosión en San Juanico, que mató a mucha gente, y siempre sabía chistes de muy mal gusto. Y también cuando es de remoto, y siempre los chistes más rápidos, se generaban sobre las víctimas. Y entonces Monsivais dijo, la ética del humor es simple, ríete del verdugo, no de la víctima. Y a eso a mí siempre me sirvió mucho como un principio ético en cuanto al humor, pero ahora que tú hablabas de no ponerle límites al humor, mi pregunta es en ese sentido. Yo también discutí mucho con Monsivais porque cuando iniciaba el VIH, por ejemplo, el SIDA, él me decía, no se puede hacer humor sobre una infamia, que era el otro principio. No hacer humor sobre una infamia, no hacer humor sobre una víctima. Y esas dos cosas a mí siempre me sirvieron mucho. Pero el límite del humor podría ser ese sin quitarle al humor tampoco, su enorme capacidad. It's enormous capabilities. Well, we have about five more minutes to respond to this because the buses are leaving. I said it before and I will say this again for those that didn't hear where the buses are. The buses that are heading to the Moac or the Jose Luis Ibanez are leaving at 5 p.m. So we have to leave this way and they're gonna tell us where the buses are, but we just want to close this in five more minutes. Let's say anyone could respond, could you respond to the questions in no more than a minute? Rapido. Very quickly. The aha of social media. I think it was brought up before it's about creating community, that what humor does, one of the things it does is that it says, I recognize you, you recognize me, we both think it's funny. A joke doesn't work with one person. It only works with many people. Yo agregaría para lo que me dice Jesusa, lo que yo quise decir es, porque no termine lo de la metafora con esta cuestión de los humores en mi cuerpo, es que no habría una salud perfecta. A mí lo que me parece es que, el humor es caustic, y el hombre tiene esa naturaleza, el ser humano tiene esa naturaleza, la estructura también. Lo que yo propongo, lo que me parece, podría ser más que el límite, sería producir las condiciones en las que justamente no hay víctimas de las cuales reírse. Sino que todos nos podemos reír unos con otros, no reírnos unos de los otros. Sino que hay condiciones en las que todos nos podemos reír juntos y contar chistes juntos y hacer comunidad en ese sentido, porque me parece que al humor, sí le podemos poner límites, pero el humor tiene una naturaleza que se escabulle todo el tiempo, ¿no? Lo que me parece es que es lo que hay que cambiar, son las condiciones donde hay quienes se pueden reír de los que no pueden reírse tanto. Eso es lo que yo quería decir más bien, ¿no? Gracias. Yeah, I think the ethics of the ethical outline just put out by Jesus is strong and elegant. I think that our opponents or the foe will continue to oppress through humor or however. So then we, of course, we continue to improve our game, but also to have for those wonderful moments to build up our repertoire of countermeasures. And some of that is satirizing them. Some of that is that kind of counterpunch that we know they're gonna tell this kind of joke. So have the counterpunch ready. They're predictable in the arrogance of their power and their oppression, and that's one of their, perhaps few vulnerabilities. So anyway, let's build up, let's brainstorm on some of that together. Bueno, gracias a todos. Thank you so much. Aquí termina esta mesa y nos vemos a la pito en un performance. Thank you so so much. Make sure you get on the bus to your next performance, and we'll see you there. Thank you. Solo para recordarles los camiones que salen al foro José Luis Ibañez es para ver el siervo encantado de Cuba. Los camiones que salen para el centro cultural universitario.