Comedy exists largely for the purpose of facilitating conversations in an unconventional–yet entirely acceptable–manner. It builds bridges between the speaker and the listeners, allowing culture and beliefs to manifest themselves in its content, and thus it has been universally accepted as a means of communication. For a joke to be ‘funny’ requires open consent of those who laugh at it; ergo if something is unfunny, it functionally cannot be described as comedy.

On Saturday night, last semester’s startup Colgate Stand Up (CSU) club hosted Ladies Night, an event which featured nine women, from various backgrounds, each performing her own short set. Donovan’s Pub was packed with spectators, and many of the comedians’ jokes were met with roars of laughter and applause. Topics ranged widely in their hilarity, from Donald Trump’s many failures to the disparities in rights between organic farm animals.

Other sets were met with a more hesitant response from the audience. Sexual assault and eating disorders were addressed by some comedians in a heavier tone than expected, and for that reason, they produced fewer laughs. Though some of the women managed to re-articulate their topics in a more laughable, light-hearted tone, the final comedian failed to do so. Her socially irresponsible failure in satirizing President Trump's racism was rewarded with a deserving, unrelenting silence.

The controversy, originally contained in the event, soon bled into social media–where the posts took on faces of their own. By the time the host and producers of the show had apologized for the final comedian’s controversial language, a stubborn comment rally had begun between various spectators, performers, and the head of CSU. Of these comments, many contained valid concerns; being a campus that is relatively in tune with PC culture, Colgate had a natural response to an outsider with such caustic views of minorities.

Some comments, though, I took issue with. The first being that the entire show was "appalling."

To say that an entire comedy show, filled with a variety of women each with different comedic styles, is entirely offensive is, in and of itself, an inflammatory statement. Comedians work hard and require a great deal of courage to put themselves in front of an audience and share their creativity with the world. To say that any comedian, especially one who is making strides in an industry notorious for holding women back, is a failure simply by association is invariably insulting. One woman's problematic comments do not disband female comedy as a whole.

Other comments mentioned the obligation of a producer to take responsibility for his or her show. While I agree with the existence of such responsibility, it is still on the shoulders of the performers to facilitate an enjoyable and benign show. The producer can apologize retroactively for something that was said in association with his or her show, but the only other action to be taken from there would be allowing for an inclusive, cohesive dialogue about the controversial material.

Such dialogue ought to be welcome by both the offender and the offended, but dialogue requires consent. And when one party prefers to unilaterally insult, criticize, and defame the other party and their work on a public forum, it is the critic who shuts down any potential dialogue.

Finally, there was the notion that comedians ought to be screened and censored before performing controversial and potentially triggering content.

I have been part of this club for quite some time now. I have seen its ups and downs, controversial jokes that land, and even worse, those that don’t. At no point, though, have I ever questioned the integrity of the club, or comedy, as a whole. I agree that trigger warnings are necessary for such public events. But there is a distinct line that our society needs and deserves to draw between being cautious of triggering content and silencing it.

Comedy is a vessel for creativity and inspiration, but it functions just as beneficially for the performer as it does for the audiences who enjoy the laughter. To say that a survivor of sexual assault does not deserve to make light of her harrowing experiences because it may trigger others not only threatens her mental health, but it also places emphasis on attacking a conceptual violence rather than the perpetrators of said violence. I would agree with CSU warning the audience of potential triggers. However, I will always vehemently oppose the creative obstruction of any art form, whether it be comedy, writing, painting, or another, that has the potential to aid survivors in their struggles.

Just as comedy has always been a pulsing measure of cultural beliefs, this online debate is soberingly indicative of ours. If our comedy event–deliberately designed to bolster women in an industry where they face unjust adversity–is met with dangerously sweeping criticisms and the demand for a dialogue that the demander is stifling, then we truly have a long way to go before comedy can be seen for what it truly is: virtuous.