What is considered funny is always premised on the underlying worldview. For example, for a racist joke to be seen as funny, racism has to be an underlying worldview, we have to have an inner racist within us. The joke about the difference between a blonde and a shopping trolley (a shopping trolley has a mind of its own) is only funny if we still have some elements of sexism within us (as most of us, raised and living in patriarchal societies almost inevitably do).
If on the other hand, the underlying worldview is the desire to negotiate – to work things out – with the other you become sensitive about what you can say, when and where about such group. You are also careful about what type of behaviours you choose to engage in, preferring those that dont reaffirm various forms of direct, structural, cultural, epistemological and ecological violence.
Non-violent communication and humour
If jokes that deal in bigotry, sexism, racism, ageism and all the other politically incorrect isms are the quintessential expression of bigoted, sexist, racist, orientalist, ageist and politically incorrect/hierarchically structured and (using Riane Eislers term) dominator society, what type of jokes would a fundamentally different society with a fundamentally different underlying worldview produce? For example, what would humour be like in a society in which cultures of peace, compassion and non-violent communication are firmly embedded?