Tapping into that streak of cruelty in human nature

Don’t worry, this is not going to be another diatribe against Bajd u Bejkin.

As I said in a previous column (Gallows humour, cancel culture, woke-ism and the right to object to it all, March 2025), you can choose not to listen or watch them and I still feel the same way. I don’t believe the answer is shutting them down (even if it were possible, which it isn’t). In that article I had also written: “What I will say is that with humour which gets attention for pushing the boundaries, one has to keep becoming more and more audacious for continued public outrage/attention (and clicks). And let’s face it, it works.”

Right on cue, after the uproar over their comments about Twanny/Giġa, it didn’t take long for them to come out with something even more outrageous. For many people, with the Terry Muscat incident they have now absolutely gone too far and the repercussions escalated quickly. If you were too busy following world events to have time for this local drama, here is a brief synopsis.

Muscat, who is transgender, filed a police report against them for showing an edited photo of her with male genitalia during their live show, which she found offensive. On Wednesday, the co-host JD Patrick went on social media to apologise to Terry and offered to meet up to smooth over their differences. However, by Thursday morning he had also stepped down from the comedy podcast.

This was followed by Terry telling the comedy team that she would pursue legal action unless they donated all their ticket sales from the live show to Puttinu Cares. After being accused of trying to blackmail them, she later watered this down by saying she had spoken in haste and they should donate “some” of the proceeds from the show to charity.

As I write, the online bickering continues, with the crux of the argument being whether free speech includes the right to offend, with absolutely no exceptions. This line of thought means nothing is sacred and that everything can be joked about, including minority groups, and clamping down on something just because someone takes offence, is simply the start of the slippery slope to censorship.

On the other hand, some maintain that good comedy should only punch up (against those in power) rather than punch down (against those with no power).

This can be argued ad infinitum, so I will leave them to it. What interests me more are the audiences and followers who have made BuB so popular. We cannot deny that they have found their niche because otherwise the whole concept would have fizzled out and disappeared. The podcast and shows have obviously tapped into something which was there, ready to be tapped. And that something is, to be blunt, the streak of cruelty in human nature which enjoys the mockery of others and the liberal use of vulgar language.

It seems that there is a sort of frisson and thrill at hearing the obscenest expressions in Maltese (of which we have many) being uttered on air. It has not gone unnoticed that the majority of those who laugh their heads off at the language used are mostly men under the age of 50 and teenage boys.  I will leave that there—make of it what you will.

Voicing what was once considered taboo has given the comic duo a certain “status” in the eyes of the podcast’s target audience. I have often seen the phrase ‘they are a breath of fresh air’ presumably because they dare to talk so openly and colloquially in the locker-room style language commonly known as “men’s talk”.

Is that sexist? Well, maybe it is, but it is a fact that when men get together, they do tend to speak more loosely.  And yes, I know women can be just as brash and vulgar (in fact, they do have a smaller, albeit equally appreciative female audience), but generally speaking, being crude and crass is still considered the domain of men. It is no coincidence that a lot of their humour has been at the expense of women. The BuB team know this and so, predictably, they have amped up what in Maltese is known as ħamallaġni with each podcast, and with each show.

When it comes to what attracts audiences to humour which verges on cruelty aimed at specific targets, it becomes an even more interesting phenomenon. Of course, this is nothing new—let’s not forget that Daphne’s blog had ample examples of this. When she used to post photos in which she sneered at people’s fashion sense or, in one case, a series of posts in which she uploaded nude photos of a female escort known as the Desert Princess, the hits on her website went through the roof. In many cases, the butt of the joke were not necessarily people in the public eye, but she always justified this by saying that if people were happy to upload photos of themselves on social media, then the pictures were up for grabs.

Her audience did not seem to mind this at all—in fact they revelled in the juicy, gossipy nature of it all. Many even forwarded her the photos knowing she would willingly publish and be damned; accompanied by her inimitable scathing commentary, much to the delight of her readers who lapped it all up. After all, it is always much, much easier to howl with laughter when the person is not you or someone you know. Was it deeply unkind? Did she often go too far? I suppose only those who were at the receiving end of the jokes can tell you this for sure.

Daphne was also not averse to taking on untouchable institutions. I remember a particularly infamous column way back in 2007 when Dun Gorg Preca was being canonised and she mocked the whole thing, referring in sarcastic terms to “the magic shoelace”. Back then joking about our religion was unheard of and devout readers were shocked to their core, with many writing letters of disgust to the editor. And who can forget when she made fun of Mintoff after he died? Fervent Labour supporters will never forgive her for that.

On the other hand, when talking about what is acceptable humour or not, would it be considered OK to make a joke (as some have done) about the way Daphne was murdered? I imagine the majority would be horrified and say no, that is crossing the line and completely not acceptable. You can be sure, however, that it would find an audience and still be circulated and shared.

Th substantial support for comedy like that of BuB could also be a reflection of the way our society has become; a society which has shaken off all its previous, admittedly oppressive, shackles but has now taken it to the other extreme. Where nothing is off limits, vulgarity is practically idolised and derogatory talk is being normalised.

What is clear from this ongoing debate is that satire, black humour, mockery or as they call it in the US, roasting someone, no matter how cruel, always finds an audience because deep down we are just immensely relieved that the joke is not on us or our family.