Humor and Contention: A Comedian’s Take on Free Expression in Social Media
Josema Yuste sparked a heated exchange during a recent appearance on Horizonte as he weighed the boundaries of humor. The comedian, who discussed the limits of comedy, drew sharp attention for statements made on social networks and for a pointed critique of how humor is judged today. He noted a decline in blunt, fearless humor compared with twenty-five or thirty years ago, suggesting a shift in what audiences accept and what platforms tolerate.
Yuste argued that certain guilds now police what can be joked about, creating a landscape that feels restrictive to comedians. He contrasted today with the past, recalling a time when jokes aimed at sensitive groups could pass without widespread backlash. He referenced ethnic and sexual identities, implying that the reception of humor has become more punitive toward certain targets while other forms of joking are treated differently. He emphasized that the double standards he perceives are part of a larger cultural change affecting performers.
In his own words, Yuste described a climate where some groups can be mocked by peers within those communities and still face little consequence, while other forms of humor are met with swift controversy. He asserted that he enforces his own policies about what topics he will avoid and that he does not allow himself to be dragged into debates about every joke or misstep.
On the broader role of social media, Yuste expressed a measured indifference. He suggested that social networks carry more negatives than positives, highlighting the mental health consequences that can accompany online attack and harassment. The comedian pointed to reports of people affected by online criticism, including feelings of depression, anxiety, and even thoughts of self-harm. His concern, in short, is not about the opinions themselves but about the harm that online discourse can cause when left unchecked.
Yuste reflected on how earlier communities handled humor without the constant mediation of online feeds. He recalled a time when neighbors, relatives, and friends shaped humor in a more intimate, less mediated way. He argued that the absence of pervasive digital voices may have fostered a healthier social atmosphere, sometimes less polluted by external judgments and the relentless pull of online validation. This perspective emphasizes a tension between creative freedom and the social consequences of what is said in public forums.
In closing, Yuste underscored a personal stance: he controls his own boundaries about what is acceptable in his material and aims to polarize discussion toward genuine dialogue rather than sensational controversy. The exchange illustrates a broader debate about how humor should evolve in a media environment defined by instantaneous reactions, rapid amplification, and evolving social norms. It also spotlights the responsibility of performers to navigate a landscape where audiences demand both edginess and accountability, and where platforms continually recalibrate what is permissible in public discourse. [Cited source]