This idea is perhaps best summed up in behavioral scientist Peter McGraw’s benign-violation theory. “The theory is grounded in the idea that people are amused by moral violations — threats to their normal worldviews, for instance, or disparaging statements — but only so long as those violations are harmless. When the tone of the threat is playful, or the setting safe, a violation that might otherwise elicit sadness or fear instead leads to laughter.” The theory states that the key to transforming a threatening violation into a joke lies in psychological distance. That distance may be spatial, social, mental, or temporal. 
Spatial distance implies that a tragedy happening far away from one’s home won’t feel as threatening. Social distance implies that it may be easier to find a thing funny if it doesn’t affect oneself or someone close. Mental distance simply means that a hypothetical tragedy may be less threatening than a real one. Temporal distance implies that something happening long ago won’t feel as threatening as something that happened only a few days ago. 
Comedian Louis C.K. opened his special, 2017, with the topic of abortion. Being that this is one of the most sensitive topics for comedians to touch, it was an unusual and bold choice. Even more unusual was his approach to the topic. He, rather crudely, addressed both sides of the argument. In equating an abortion to nothing more than defecation, he exhibits some basic shock-comedy traits and risks losing part of the audience. Then, he awkwardly talks his way around to the other side of the issue, stating “I don’t think it’s killing a baby, I don’t. I mean, it is. It’s a – it’s a little bit – it’s a little bit killing a baby. It’s a little bit. It’s a 100% killing a baby. It is – it’s totally killing a whole baby.” This is where it becomes really interesting. In acknowledging both arguments of the issue and essentially saying that they both have good points, he is merely pointing out the fact that this is an issue without an easy solution. As New York Times columnist Jason Zinoman put it, “Despite what he says at the start of the show, he is less interested in telling us what he thinks about abortion than in dramatizing confusion and anxiety about it.”  
At this point, whether or not one finds his act funny is irrelevant. The level of psychological distance for each audience member will vary, depending on each person’s personal experiences. The one thing that the person with tears of laughter in his or her eyes and the person who is disgusted with C.K. must agree on, however, is that there is a divisive and complicated rift surrounding the topic of abortion. There still may be some who tune him out due to the crude nature of his jokes, but if one were to do that, one is stunting one’s own personal growth by allowing the neuropathways to block any further enlightenment. Ultimately, this was his point. In putting his awkwardness around the subject on display and stumbling around the issue, he effectively communicates what it must feel like inside the minds of people who don’t fall on the extreme end of either side of the argument.  
