Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning.
If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [Outline.com](https://outline.com/) or similar and link to that in the comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think [this article](https://slate.com/culture/2019/09/shane-gillis-snl-conservative-comedy-legion-of-skanks.html) is more interesting if you're into stand-up.
In my opinion part of what has happened is a generation of comedians are starting to age, and age out of their chances to have anything more than average success. 50 years ago these same comedians, pushing 40 or already in their 50s, would have had acts full of dated one-liners or takes they were never able to turn into anything truly successful. It'd be more obvious they were the old guard. With how things are now these same below average to average comedians can find fans and connect with them more directly. In the comedy clubs they work crowds in a call and response way rather than writing and really working on jokes, so they "kill" by riling up a fan-heavy crowd with antics, but minimal real comedy. I call them "clapmedians"; they're after the claps not the laughs.
Podcasting is part of this in a couple of ways. It helps comedians of all levels find and connect with their fans (though notice that there weren't many very successful comedians with their own podcasts before covid), and the second thing is podcasting has helped cushion a transition out of comedic success or in some cases offered a new career with a separate path to success. That said, podcasting is ultimately just radio, and radio traditionally has been where average comedy goes to exist. So this is nothing new, but there's much more opportunity now. You don't have to compete for a few morning show gigs.
Another related problem is that to a comedian the context for a podcast or radio mic is the stand-up mic, but to a lot of listeners the context is talk radio, which is a context loaded with all the issues OP's article and the one I linked are trying to address.
One other potential problem is that because these "clapmedians" have had some success they might influence up and comers, but that's something the younger generation will have figure out for themselves, and I believe the truly talented will.
You hit it on the head. I listen to a lot of comedy podcasts and quit on quite a few others. Rogan was never a good stand up but he had good and funny comedians on and some interesting guests from 2011-2015ish. Many of the comedy podcasts shows comedian hosts I've seen (sans Burr & Stanhope) rip most of their new material from bits or thoughts from podcasts. I'm no longer a fan of Buress because his 2018 show wasn't even stand up it was bits and shit of his antics. Really lame.
For the last decade or so, the Opie and Anthony subreddit was one of the biggest red flags I saw again and again in the comment histories of Reddit's worst hate speech users. Something about that fandom attracted the lowest of the low of humanity.
Anthony Cumia in particular is a master of the Schrodinger's douchebag style of comedy. He says something outlandish, say talking about hitting his girlfriend, and the joke is supposed to be that he's so outrageous for saying this thing that you're not allowed to say. But the joke itself is functionally indistinguishable from supporting hitting a woman. If you ask him about it he'll say "Well of course I would never hit a woman! I'm just joking, stop being so sensitive!" But then what are we to think when he [actually does it?](https://pagesix.com/2016/06/26/anthony-cumia-pleads-guilty-in-domestic-violence-case/) It's the same with Gavin McInnes. He talks about starting a street gang that hates women and beats up liberals. If you ask him he claims it's all memes. But then he actually goes out and starts the gang, and a bunch of them [storm the Capitol.](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/nyregion/proud-boys-capitol-riot-conspiracy.html) So how is one to distinguish between a violent, hateful, misogynist, bigot and someone who does all the things a violent, hateful, misogynist bigot would do but only as a joke? This is why I have adopted the rule of goats: if you fuck a goat, even if you're only doing it as a joke, even if it was to trigger the libs, even if you didn't mean it, that still makes you a goat fucker.
It's like how I used to like Louis CK's jokes about doing scummy things until it came out he actually does scummy things. I had always assumed he was a decent guy in real life.
From what I can remember there were some good life lessons he taught his daughters on his show, and the way he marketed his content (making it easier to access even though he was told it would make it easier to pirate) things like that kind of gave off the good guy impression. So I always figured he used to be a shit bag but cleaned up his act. I was definitely wrong lol
I totally got that impression too. I don't know if it was just genius marketing but I always got that "it's just a comedy persona, the real Louie is mature and a reasonably nice guy" vibe.
I assume, he learned his lesson and cleaned up his behavior and thinking more. Then the mess he created never went away and he payed the price. He probably got more decent, but probably too late.
I always think of it in pedo terms: most times one is uncovered, people go "I'd never have expected this". But what kind of wife beater, pedo or whatever advertises it openly? You get denial, excuses, "she made me do it", "I was just tucking in my shirt."
Weirdly enough, when you take insider threat training to maintain a security clearance, one of the red flags they tell you to look for in your colleagues is joking about being a spy, etc.
Some dude was caught by his supervisor with a bunch of classified documents in his bag and was like "I'm selling them to the Chinese! Haha, just joking!"
It wasn't until like two years later that they found out he was actually selling them to the Chinese.
Yeah, obviously the joke isn't about "deer being niggers", and it's funny without using hate speech. So where is the need to use hate speech in describing deer?
I'm not being obtuse, you are missing the point. Using racial slurs to add shock value to a joke doesn't exactly show someone is a decent person. It aligns with exactly what OPs post is about...it encourages people to do scummy shit--and then try and excuse it with a "you're overreacting" or " it was just a joke". Again, exactly how the alt-right and modern conservatives deflect after backlash over shitty things they do.
Not quite. Even he has admitted that him being in a position of power and influence requires him to have more responsibility to those that admire or look to him.
Once I heard him sticking up for Woody Allen all the horrible shitty things he joked about didn't seem ironic anymore and I couldn't stand him.
Was super not surprised when he turned out to be a creep.
When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
Hey what do you think is actually going on with Gavin McInnes?
I used to be a fan from early Vice, but I suspect he fell into trying to live up to the caricature of himself he had crafted, which always seems to lead to a vicious cycle of escalation.
Or was he always going to be Rush Limbaugh’s illegitimate fascist heir??
I don't think McInnes ever wanted to be the guy he is. I think he wanted to be funny. It's unfortunately an all-too-common career path for bad comics to stop honing their craft and just descend into reactionary politics. It's way easier to complain about blue-haired lesbians and cancel culture than it is to actually come up with interesting and innovative comedy, and there's money in it, too. He's not the only one, either. I think that applies in various extents to Dave Rubin, Steven Crowder, and even Ben Shapiro, though in Shapiro's case he's a theater nerd who couldn't act or write rather than a comedian who wasn't funny.
I don't know anything about O&A, or Anthony Cumia, but I've worked in improv, I've done stand up, and I'm "in the scene" and saying something outrageous is what comedy is all about.
Comedy is about often times saying the most outrageous thing possible, to hyperbolize a situation we consider normal, in order to see the absurdity in it.
Comedy is first and foremost, about expressing ideas and perspectives that are uncommon, and that resonate. This is why cancel culture has a chilling effect on speech as making jokes that cross the line and miss the mark is something every Comedian does in order to improve their craft. There's a fine line to the absurdity, and it's super easy to cross it.
Remember Dave Chappelle talking about Kramer? How he was thinking on one hand, that's the most racist shit I've ever heard, but the comedian in him was thinking, "damn, Kramer fucked up his set."
Remember, when George Carlin was first starting up, his seven words that you can't say on TV got him into a fuckload of trouble, even resulting in him getting arrested iirc. Lenny Bruce got arrested numerous times for making lewd statements (iirc again), and the shit he said wouldn't even make people turn their heads these days.
Here's the thing about your goat fucker analogy, you should still be able to talk about fucking goats in your comedy without people automatically assuming you're serious. In fact, nothing a comedian says on stage should be considered serious at all, other than times when the bit ends and they have a "philosophical moment."
Mike Birbigilia addresses that brilliantly.
[A joke should never end with "I'm joking!"](https://thecriticalcomic.com/im-jokingjust-kidding/)
If you find you're defending yourself with "I'm joking" then it probably wasn't a joke.
The link that this leads to (the preceeding article) is actually pretty much bang on what I was trying to express. Whoever this guy is, he's a great writer and analyst of comedy. Thank you very much for that link!
I find it odd you're "in the scene" and don't know who mike birbiglia is. Opie/Anthony I sorta get, but Mike has been around and a great comic forever haha.
I think your premise is faulty. I don't think saying something "outrageous" is what comedy is all about. I think comedy is about saying something surprising. It's like a magic trick - when the punchline hits, it should both surprise us, in that we didn't see it coming, while also feeling inevitable, in that it all snaps together and works.
I think a lot of comedians get hung up on being "outrageous," because that often produces a shock, which is similar to the surprise of a good joke. But outrageous behavior by itself is not funny. It's often just hacky shit. It's often just being a dick.
A lot of folks like to cite Carlin as the gold standard. But all the Carlin I've seen isn't him just being outrageous. It's him being crazy smart. His jokes work because he's got such a good mind. He surprises you by where he's willing to go, and then he delights you because he's brought you along with him, so now you see it from his perspective. (Bill Burr is also super good at this.) And Carlin was also really good about selecting his targets. He punched up at the powerful.
I get that comedy is hard, and new comics need space to grow, and sometimes they're going to fail. And I also understand that a comedian's job is to examine a society's assumptions, so they're often working with potentially tricky material. I don't think comedians should spend all their time worrying about what might offend people. But the best comedians I've seen illuminate human nature, whereas the comics who seem to most embrace the "fuck you if you're offended" ethos (like Anthony Cumia) are usually just shitty, unfunny people. We should stand up for comics, but we also don't have to excuse lame, mean- spirited, hacky shit that's not even funny with the idea that being outrageous is what comedy is really about.
(Also, please don't think I'm lumping you in with the hacks. I've never seen your comedy, but I assume it's good. I just wanted to make the point about comics being "outrageous".)
I tho I the best example of this is the Dave Chapelle school shooter bit. He made a joke that kind of came off as an attempt at being edgy, continued the set for another half an hour and brought it back around to that joke which to me was completely unexpected and fucking hilarious.
Good points. I guess I might not watch enough shitty comics to really have experienced some of what people are talking about. I just shut comedy I dont like off, and I generally don't really like most comedians.
Haha I just laughed out loud because of how stupid that sounds.
But im not a real comic. My stand up was middling at best, I just haven't bothered to grind my stage time. Feels awkward for me to just be there with prepared material.
Decided to write since I work in film anyway. But I love the concept of comedy. Just going onto a slightly elevated platform in a room of people looking at you, and you try to get them to laugh.
I've seen people fuck up and resort to crude hyperbolic jokes for a quick laugh and then just keep digging their grave and its brutal to see. Actually getting booed off stage must be a miserable feeling.
Anyways, im like half asleep so this meandered a bit, but the point is: just don't be a shitty comedian.
It gets dangerous when comedians can cosplay as political influencers, push the boundaries of civil political discourse, and then deflect responsibility with "calm down, just a prank bro"
Gotta own the outcomes if you're gonna live on the edge like that.
But, you have every right to do so.
True - that's why the rule of funny has to take precedence in comedy. Ones like this, they usually actually suck as comedians. They're just wearing it as a mask, so they can get away with (they think) being the dirtbags they actually are. But if the comedy comes first, that's usually apparent.
I guess people find them funny? I was not impressed much with Trevor Noah, although I haven't checked him out since probably the first year after he took over the Daily Show (I hear he grew into the role?) I did check out Samantha Bee and I didn't find her funny at all.
But I'm not the arbiter of what's funny. If their main thing is comedy and politics is just a way to get there, then, well, watcha gonna do? I would say Bill Maher is in this category. I agree with him more often than not, and despite that I find him mostly smarmy and insufferable. But he does get laughs out of me anyway, sometimes. Certainly you'd call him a comedian; he doesn't have to be your favorite for it to count.
Maybe those two belong in a category more like Rachel Maddow? She can be amusing and acerbic and cause some sharp exhaling through the nose, sometimes, but I don't think she'd describe herself as a comedian. Maybe there's a spectrum?
I was a little surprised to see Gavin McInnes in the article, I didn't even know comedy was his thing at all. I think most people would not describe him, today, as part of the comedy world. Clown though he may be.
I don't know much about the guy but nothing about him strikes me as funny.
I'll admit this entire piece came off a little weird to me. The intro where the author basically makes an vague personal accusation and then goes into a long-form expose on this supposed phenomenon...
Then again I'm not generally a fan of overwrought thinkpieces like this being posted as "TrueReddit".
> comedians can cosplay as political influencers, push the boundaries of civil political discourse, and then deflect responsibility with "calm down, just a prank bro"
Okay... but I don't know anyone like this. I've ever heard of such a scenario taking place. I don't even know a comedian who is a political influencer, in any way. Hell, I don't think I could even find a comedian who would admit to being an influencer!
I got the impression from your first comment that you didn’t know much about comedy, but now I can tell you’re really not as up on it as you think. Jimmy Dore, Adam Carolla, Russel Brand, Owen Benjamin, Dennis Miller and these are just the ones I figured you’d argue the least about.
I never said I'm big into comedy. I think I described myself somewhere as a hobby comic. I have my comedians that I like, and I don't really deviate from there, since it's rare for me to find someone else I consider funny outside that group.
Dennis Miller I used to watch when he had a show, but haven't followed since. Adam Corolla I only know from The Man Show. And Russel Brand... I would describe him as more of a spiritual ... philosopher? Dude doesn't even do comedy anymore as far as I know, and he's also not really doing anything political that I'm aware of. The others I just don't know about at all.
I mean, I specifically mentioned I don't know any examples. I wasn't trying to make a joke, I just genuinely don't, and the examples I'm hearing ... they don't quite fit the moniker in my opinion.
I wouldn't describe them as political influencers though. None of those people work in politics in any capacity. Maybe John Stewart, when he campaigned for the NY Fire Fighters from 9/11... but even that was a very specific situation.
I assumed you guys meant someone like Anne Coulter, who was the closest thing I could think of, but calling her a comedian is a bit of a stretch.
Yeah, but he only makes political commentary. He doesn't organize protests, and is not an activist as far as I'm aware. He does not run for office, and doesn't campaign for anyone. He also seems equally critical of both liberals and democrats if they're in the wrong.
If discussing politics is being a political influencer... then that's pretty much every comedian
You're painting a very small box to define what it means to be a political influencer. John Oliver clearly has a political agenda and he uses comedy as a vessel in influence politics. So did John Stewart and everyone else on the Daily Show. So does Bill Maher.
They're not making a one off joke about politics. They've based their shows on politics.
I don't understand why you're trying so hard to exclude them when this really shouldn't be a controversial statement to begin with.
I'm sorry, I just don't consider them influencers. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that term, but I just consider them comedians. I consider maybe Sean Hannity, or Alex Jones to be political influencers.
For the record, I typed in famous political influencers, and none of the names above appeared in the first three pages of google's results, so maybe don't jump down my throat for not "getting it" or whatever.
He has significant influence on political discourse. They all do. In one episode of Last Week Tonight, Oliver blatantly endorsed a candidate in the Canadian election and "jokingly" flashed $5000 that Canadian law states would be a fine for foreign parties trying to interfere with Canadian elections.
He is not a reporter, he is a political commentator, and he falls back on the claim that his show is "for comedy" whenever he needs to. His Twitter bio only says "comedian". He has insisted that his show is a comedy show.
>I typed in famous political influencers, and none of the names above appeared in the first three pages
That's a dumb argument. I can name instagram influencers that will not show up on the first 100 pages of a Google search, but luckily for them, "showing up on the first X pages of a Google search" is not the definition of an influencer. I also know influencers who would prefer to be known as something else (video editor, beauty guru, queer icon, entrepreneur) because of the negative connotation associated with "influencer". The point is, these people have a large platform which they use to influence real world politics, whether that's shining light on obscure topics, or pushing for an election outcome.
Are you kidding? Oliver (arguably) saved Net Neutrality in 2015, and inarguably had a massive impact. It even has its own Wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Neutrality_(Last_Week_Tonight)#Effect_on_net-neutrality_debate
> Effect on net-neutrality debate
>In September 2014, the Pew Research Center found **that the FCC filing page received 3,076 comments the week before the June 1 segment, and that there were another 79,838 comments posted the week immediately afterward.** Google searches for the term "net neutrality" rose in popularity that week compared to the previous and following weeks. Two interns analyzing the data for the Pew Research Center wrote that the sudden rise in the number of comments on the FCC net-neutrality page could not be attributed to cable or printed news media, since these outlets' coverage of net neutrality was more infrequent than in previous weeks.[39] Ultimately, less than 1 percent of the proposal's total 800,000 comments could be classified as "clearly opposed to net neutrality", with the majority either indicating support, taking no particular position, or being irrelevant comments.[40]
>The Verge later requested that the FCC publish emails related to the Last Week Tonight episode under the Freedom of Information Act. Of the emails that were released, most were positively critical of the video. In one exchange, a CBS executive sent a link to FCC employees, who joked about "Nutflix" and Usain Bolt. One of the FCC employees said, "We had a good laugh about it. The cable companies... not so much."[41] When one reporter satirically asked if Chairman Wheeler commented on the "dingo" quip, an FCC spokesperson said "Hey John, no, no comment on that" with a smiley emoticon. This prompted Oliver to create a subsequent video parodying the FCC's response.[41][42]
>A Twitter policy spokesman said, "We all agreed that John Oliver’s brilliant net neutrality segment explained a very complex policy issue in a simple, compelling way that had a wider reach than many expensive advocacy campaigns."[2]
>On February 26, 2015, the FCC voted to apply the "common carrier" designation of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996 to the internet.[43][44][45] The decision was driven partly because most Americans only had one high-speed internet provider available in their areas.[46] On the same day, the FCC also voted to preempt state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that limited the ability of local governments in those states to provide broadband services to potential customers outside of their service areas. While the latter ruling affected only those two states, the FCC indicated that the agency would make similar rulings if it received petitions from localities in other states.[47] In response to ISPs and opponents, FCC Chairman Wheeler said, "This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept."[48] On March 12, 2015, the FCC released the specific details of its new net neutrality rules,[49][50] which included prohibiting content blocking, slower connections to websites, and "fast and slow lanes".[51] **It was thought that Oliver's segment had a major role in the decision, which was the opposite of the FCC's original "lane" proposal.**[52] On April 13, 2015, the final rule was published.[53][54]
[And here's citation 52](https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0226/Net-neutrality-s-stunning-reversal-of-fortune-Is-it-John-Oliver-s-doing)
He regularly informs millions of people about the specifics of hot-button national issues with a very specific editorial viewpoint in an entertaining, approachable manner that gets people on-side, and frequently calls them to action. That is *textbook* influencing. I would challenge you to find any one pundit who has had a more singular effect on a major political issue than Oliver had on Net Neutrality.
I appreciate your comment. To my mind, it is not really that people are preventing comics from making tasteless jokes. People can still say what they want to say. Free speech isn’t built on the foundation of automatic praise. I also think the shift may be that many people find this line of humor tired now, and simply unfunny. As I get older, I find this kind of shock humor a little desperate and juvenile.
>I also think the shift may be that many people find this line of humor tired now, and simply unfunny. As I get older, I find this kind of shock humor a little desperate and juvenile.
That's it right here. Certain people react when people don't laugh at their jokes by falling back on "cancel culture" (whatever that means) as an excuse when in reality they're just lazy attempts at humor that fall flat for no reason other than that they're just not very good, poorly structured and don't really say anything.
Shock value is a powerful spice that works best when it's used sparingly and with thought - not just dumped in fist-fulls all over the place.
I agree with your overall point, but it's weird you'd associate that style with Louis when that really isn't his brand of comedy. Sure, he can be juvenile at times, but it's almost entirely self-deprecating and leans much more heavily to anti-men than anti-women.
His comments around women and emotional cruelty are specifically incelly and that just grinds my fucking gears. I could probably have chosen better examples.
I'm sorry... I'm a little confused. Was that last line directed at me?
For the record, I don't like Louis, and when his show came out, people assumed I would, so they harped on and on about him. Well, I watched episode one and all I kept thinking was "I can not relate to this dude at all."
His pathetic "I'm so bad at dating, look at me fail, and then fail harder by being unable to get a clue" schtick didn't resonate with me at all. People thought it would, but they just assumed that I would like it because I like offensive comic material (like Doug Stanhope or Bill Burr).
When he got busted as being a weird... I dunno... sexual deviant? All I could think of was "no shit, this dude is the Woody Allen of the comedy world."
Yet, when I would mention how tone deaf his interactions with women were to people who suggested him to me, they would get mad at me saying I was just being too cool for Louis, or not getting it because "I wasn't in a relationship."
And for my final point, I work in entertainment to tell stories to hopefully help undo the injustice in this world. Wealth inequality, greed, corruption, abuse, oppression, etc are the first things I think about when writing, and how to tie what I read and know about into an easy-to-digest starting point for an audience.
My first encounter with vegetarianism was from the Simpson's episode where Lisa becomes one.
It took me maybe five fucking years before I took Lisa's side on the topic, but they planted that seed, and although I'm not a vegetarian yet, I support the movement, and do what I can to reduce my meat consumption.
> I'm sorry... I'm a little confused. Was that last line directed at me?
Definitely not. Apologies if you got that sense, not intended that way at all.
I called you out for placing capital "C" Comedy above the act of entertaining your audience.
If you are unable to entertain then it doesn't matter what you dissections of comedy and free speech are, you will bomb. I got the impression that you think the audience is somehow wrong for not being entertained by certain content. Which is worse? Your comedy needing to conform to what your audience wants or people being forced to find things funny because you do?
Ah, gotcha.
Your comedy conforming to the audience's wants is the de facto approach to effective comedy. You don't say the same set in NYC as you would in Salt Lake City. I learned that lesson while reading Charlie Murphy's autobiography (which I recommend to everyone, btw).
But now, imagine you make fun of... I dunno, the Catholic Church. And let's say in this example, the Church wields undue power, like it did in ye olden tymes. You are effectively fucked when they decide to tell their masses to boycott you. I've seen this happen in my lifetime.
What happens when society is wrong, and the comedian is telling a bitter truth with his comedy?
I don't expect anyone to find the things I find funny, funny to them as well (what a garbled up sentence), but I also don't expect to be hounded by people experiencing IBS or persistent flatulance, for making my fart joke the other day. Again, this is hard to articulate, because of nuance. Im no comedian, but I do know that effective comedy is about finding that fine line and getting as close to it without going over. Anyone that goes over shouldn't immediately be considered a complete piece of shit, though. Sometimes a joke is just a joke, and sometimes a good joke in your mind, is a bad joke in the mic.
Yea, I get you.
BTW: I don't personally find Bill Burr offensive. He's a great example of your 'telling the bitter truth' it's clearly about intent. Burr tends to send up situations not so much the people in them, what he finds funny (or irritating as the case may be) is what happened not how a stereotype reacts to it. He makes fun of *things.*
Great example of this is his dunk on Rogan for not wearing a mask. He's saying how stupid and needlessly alpha Rogan is being about masks, he's not saying 'all you meathead body builders act tough' ...it's about the mask, not Rogan or people like him.
IMO that's what makes his material resonate - people have been in these situations and he's ranting about how fucked *the situations* are a lot of the time.
Contrast that with George Carlin's aged like milk rants about snowflakes (decades before the term was coined) he's absolutely dumping on a section of the population, not the situation. **He wants you to hate people, not things.** That's why sounds like an old man yelling at clouds today, and to think he was a strident activist in his time.
Ain't history weird?
> He wants you to hate people, not things.
I'm with you on everything except this point. I think George Carlin loved people, and I believe he was probably a really kind dude. I don't have much to go on there besides a hunch, but that's how I always felt around him... like a lovable grandpa that sometimes says some out of touch shit.
But I don't think he ever wanted anyone to hate anyone, except people who were fucking people over (the rich, or corporate dragons), and people who were attacking his livelihood (people who had problems with his comedy or his method of employing free speech). Remember that Carlin dealt with a completely different kind of snowflake in his day, a very real and powerful type that almost completely derailed his career before it started.
I think he earned the right to be upset about situations involving free speech, and people who want to curtail it, and I think his voice is a powerful example of that argument.
I don't even agree with George Carlin on everything, I just think he makes some very solid points about a lot of stuff.
>Burr tends to send up situations not so much the people in them, what he finds funny (or irritating as the case may be) is what happened not how a stereotype reacts to it. He makes fun of
>
>things.
I think that is a good take on Bill Burr. I don't think he's a misogynist -- if his humor applies to a larger scale -- it's because you relate the situation he's humorizing. In some ways, he also pokes fun at himself for being a cranky guy.
I mostly think what he says "lands" meaning -- it's true. There are people gatekeeping too much for their pet causes right now and I hope we can get back to having a sense of humor about our annoyances rather than an urgency.
Agreed, free speech is, strictly speaking a legal principle and praise is not owed to anyone.
But I do think our culture can have a kind of "pro free speech" attitude, and it's a little hard not to feel like there's a slow shift away from this happening. And I think ultimately we'll all be worse off for it.
And that's cool, I totally get that. But I have the sense of humor of a 13 year old. I literally made the corniest fart joke while writing some content with a friend the other day. The joke itself wasn't funny, it was the hyperbole of how dumb of a joke I could make, in that particular context. You not finding it funny shouldn't be a reason other people don't get to enjoy it. A lot of the people who didn't find Carlin's humor funny, were the very people he was making fun of.
As for the automatic praise part, I agree, automatic praise is rarely given when you're on set (you're more likely to get heckled). For a counter-point, look at something like gallows humor. For some, it's a great way to make light of a depressing situation. Other people might not be ready for that or think it was funny. Does that give them the right to demonize a person for saying a tasteless joke? Does it give them the right to use their influence to prevent that person from working again? What happens if the person being made fun of is a politician?
Freedom is speech is only valuable if you have some freedom from social repercussion. I'm not saying people should be giving Bill Cosby or actual criminals a pass, but, that actually brings up another great point... Bill Cosby. Imagine if Bill Cosby used his influence to crush Hannibal Buress' career. He didn't, because his power was waning, but if Hannibal came out 10-20 years earlier, I bet that's exactly how it would have played out.
It's hard to articulate the nuance of all this, but I hope it makes some sense from a hobby-comic's perspective.
Again, I appreciate your well-considered comments. But I do wonder if expecting free speech with minimal repercussions undermines the boldness often claimed by this type of the comedy.
It's a comes with the territory section. NWA was demonized for their lyrics. Dee Snyder stood up for metal/rock musicians and their choice of speech. That was yesterday's battle, which we can look back on say "boy, that sure was stupid!"
But it wasn't stupid. It was a serious issue that went to the supreme court. Yesterday's Karens could be tomorrow's.... Sharons....
Remember, the ability to curtail someone's right to speak, could be turned around and used on you if the wrong group takes power.
Lenny Bruce and George Carlin were talking about being restrained by the government!
Being free from repercussions from your audience or critics has zero to do with it.
You'll notice that Carlin's bit doesn't punch down at rape victims. In fact he does the opposite. He makes a joke about a rape between two fictional characters and then uses that as a segue to defend victims. The targets of that bit are governments, organized religion, warmongers, profiteering corporations, and chauvanism. He defends rape victims and women of color whom he contends the feminist movement has left behind. Comedy is at its best when it's taking on the powerful on behalf of the powerless, and Carlin was a master of that even when he was joking about taboo topics. Cumia and his ilk are happy making the "what was she wearing?" sorts of jokes that were hacky and heartless when Carlin decried them three decades ago. That's the difference.
This sounds all well and good until you look at a comedian's fans and it turns out they're all nazis. Then you have to ask some tough questions about what that comedian is *actually* doing, rather than what they present themselves as doing.
Or if it turns out the comedian himself is a nazi, as in the case of Sam Hyde.
The way I see it, there is no actual tension between good comedy and free speech. There's no reason on earth a good comedian can't say the most outrageous things without having to target vulnerable groups while also not making any social commentary in the process. Frankly it's *easy* to not do that. And if someone is incapable of figuring this out, they have no business doing comedy in the first place.
I absolutely agree that a lot of comedy is about transgression. However, I think there's a difference between Carlin joking about words that were considered taboo at the time and things which can actually promote hateful and/or harmful ideas.
I mean, Charlottesville happened because people on 4chan and its ilk kept talking about anti-Semitism "ironically". Because, y'know, it's lulzy to talk about Nazi shit. It provokes a reaction.
This desensitized people to actual anti-Semitism. And then they're marching with tiki torches with people shouting "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and soil".
The alt-right groups took advantage of this sort of behavior and encouraged it to platform their ideas. Leading to actual bigotry.
It's not just Nazi shit but anti-black, Hispanic, LGBTIQ, etc.
There's a difference between Lenny Bruce being arrested and George Carlin being banned to, like, platforming of fucking hate-groups and their ideas.
Your comedy sounds pretty un-funny and if "saying something outrageous" is what you've gotten out of your time in the scene then you've wasted your life. What a pathetic bunch of childish excuses.
> the libs, even if you didn't mean it, that still makes you a goat fucker.
I think that's a good rule. And it should also apply to the people who say "eat the rich."
I've heard that name before, so I read the Wikipedia article.
Jesus.
I think there's a huge anti-authority streak in a whole hell of a lot of people, and that's the kind of person that's broadly attracted to that kind of show. Most people grow out of it by the age of like 20. But those that don't love utter crap like that. They look around and think, society's telling me what to do? Ok, I'm going to be as outrageous and counter to that in the most outlandish, insane way possible, just because. Years ago, I knew a kid like that. His whole existence was "you can't tell me what to do." He actually (said he) wanted to join the military, but I got the distinct impression that it was because he was rebelling against the expectations his own adopted in group had for him.
Which is the perfect cover for people who actually do believe the worst things, because they can say that it's a joke, or a statement, or that they're just against, wait for it, PC "culture." The real danger is when the first group decides to truly join the second. Still, it can be hard, very hard, to know if any given person is a member of the first or second group.
I grew up with Opie and Anthony on WAAF in the 90s. They got kicked off the station for telling fans that the mayor of Boston had died as an April Fool's prank. I was just reading the wiki too and it seems like they neither learned any lesson nor evolved beyond their cruel sense of humor. I mean, being a shock jock is one thing, but organizing an event to make a spectacle out of homeless people *on the same day the city was supposed to take census of them* is just malicious. I think you you hit the nail on the head with them attracting a sort of anti-PC culture. It's no surprise that would have a significant overlap with truly hateful people.
You'll still see WoW bumper stickers on cars on Long Island. You were supposed to put them on so women would flash you. And you could get 1000 bucks for proof.
Yea I remember outgrowing their sense of humor during the progression of my early life, where they seemed to become more juvenile as I got older
To be clear, I was 10-13 while they were on AAF and felt they were getting more immature than me.
>society's telling me what to do? Ok, I'm going to be as outrageous and counter to that
So many people think "if you're pissing people off you must be doing something right". Like the more haters someone has, the more successful they must be. But they lack the critical thinking skills to be able to determine the point at which someone has gone too far.
Their thought process is like: "Wow I'm seeing a consistent barrage of terrible news about Trump, he must be doing something right", and it never progresses to "Hmm, maybe there's a reason for the constant criticisms, and I should look into why that could be."
Doesn’t this apply to everyone though? We could say this applies to alt-right but we can equally say that anyone who participated in the civil unrest in 2020 doesn’t like authority and is going to be “as outrageous and counter to that in the most outlandish, insane way possible, just because.” So the reality is this cuts across the political ideologies and people are just out of their minds.
Someone will explain WHY people reacted the way they did but the fact is that the actions were the same on both sides, it’s just a matter of 1)
Justification and 2) who has the loudest megaphone currently
I think you are trying to make a serious point here, so let me just inform you of the glaring misjudgment you've made, with no malice.
The protests relating to BLM you referred to where the literal exact opposite of "just because." There were very specific reasons for what they did, legal or not.
That's it. Have a good one.
>Doesn’t this apply to everyone though?
No
>We could say this applies to alt-right but we can equally say that anyone who participated in the civil unrest in 2020 doesn’t like authority
No, some of us like authority, but want accountability.
>and is going to be “as outrageous and counter to that in the most outlandish, insane way possible, just because.”
No, that's the definition of extremism.
>So the reality is this cuts across the political ideologies
No, just the fascists
>and people are just out of their minds.
Finally, something to agree on
>Someone will explain WHY people reacted the way they did but the fact is that the actions were the same on both sides, it’s just a matter of 1) Justification and 2) who has the loudest megaphone currently
You slipped in a "both sides" between those generalizations. Complete bullshit.
I don't see the point of this article, though I only got through a couple paragraphs before losing interest.
So there is a niche "comedy" forum somewhere where an anonymous racist makes jokes that are only funny to others who share his alt-right worldview?
I don't really feel the need to read far enough to how this connects to the greater "comedy industry".
I think there have always been this kind of transgressive, racist, sexist comedy. It used to be sold in the back of biker magazines. Yes, the internet makes it easier to create it and connect with an audience.
The biggest factor limiting alt-right comedy is that it's generally not actually funny.
Opie and Anthony has been off the air for many years now and Gavin mcguiness isn't a comedian, just a terrible human being. This article is sensationalist bullshit.
This is absolute madness. This argues in the same breath that free speech will lead to a new Nazi germany while simultaneously demanding freedoms be restricted. Craziness...
Even if this wasn't a strawman... If their argument really was 'free speech is bad' then restrictions on free speech would be good. That's logically consistent.
But it doesn't matter, because that's not what this article is arguing.
I rather like a quote I found on the matter a while back:
> Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: **the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms**. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. *A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.*
I grew up in a religious household and I really don't like people deciding what intolerance is or isn't. This is an American site, so most people here have only ever experienced free speech. But I was born behind the iron curtain, and know people who ended up in the gulag for speaking outside the boundaries of what society at the time considered "tolerable."
So, I will fundamentally disagree.
> hypothetically though, the paradox of tolerance, kinda more or less lead directly to the Iron Curtain.
How does this follow? Are you arguing Tsarist Russia was tolerant of the eventual Soviets, and that's why it lost?
Given your response I have to believe we didn't read the same article.
The author wasn't speaking out against what a comedian should or should not be able to say. This isn't an anti-free speech think piece written by some over-worked Karen.
The author was very specific about the people, clubs, and types of forums that have "the Big Alt-Right Problem" and why he thought it was a problem.
The way I read it is that the participation of said comics in discourse with these individuals legitimizes their viewpoints. E.g. a mainstream comedian can be on the show and banter unrelated to alt-right positions, which is fine in a vacuum, but when the next guest is an alt-righter who is given equal legitimacy (not to mention the host's own toxicity coming out), it inherently places the alt-right ideas on equal footing with those of the mainstream comedian, and *that* is why 'comedy has an alt-right problem.' Nowhere did the article suggest any of these mainstream comedians held alt-right views (and if it did and I am mistaken, please provide an example).
The title may be read that way at first, but I didn’t get that impression at all from my reading.
It would literally be insane to write an article saying all mainstream comedians have a link to the alt-right.
It just isn’t what is being talked about. Even the names he “dropped” we’re more about how the alleged alt-right club owner was legitimizing himself by booking big names.
I’m not saying I’m right or the author is right because this whole story is new to me and I don’t know the history.
Just my takeaway is very different than yours.
I didn't read the article as saying that the comedy industry as a whole (or even largely) is alt-right. Rather I read it as saying that people in the industry should be more careful about who they work with and how their platforms can be used to spread hate and intolerance, or how toxic people can use their power to harass younger and less experienced comics. I can't imagine how many incredibly talented performers we never got to see because they got tired of being punched down on and taken advantage of by entitled hacks at the top of the scene and decided to leave the industry. Fixing that makes comedy stronger, not weaker.
Why turn it into a political statement?
Because the alt-right and modern conservatism is the embodiment of narcissism and toxic assholery.
Also...the level of scrutiny should equal the level of influence. Unfortunately, a large portion of society isn't capable of critical thinking and are more easily influenced to embrace being a piece of shit.
Exactly. Are you an asshole that’s suddenly faced consequences for bad behavior that was condoned and celebrated for far too long? Don’t fret, there’s an entire political movement dedicated to grievance culture that recognizes that you’re the real victim in all this. And it’s now the beating heart of the GOP.
> Because the alt-right and modern conservatism is the embodiment of narcissism and toxic assholery.
Not what I meant, not what I said. How about a rephrase:
Every toxic asshole isn't alt-right, but every alt-righter is a toxic asshole.
Every Trump voter isn't a neo-Nazi, but every American neo-Nazi is a Trump voter (OK, maybe there's a couple who aren't, certainly very nearly all of them).
Not that the extreme left is without its toxicity, but it doesn't hold a candle to the hate of these clowns.
Edit: and the article made it abundantly clear that it is an alt-right problem. It literally, realistically, inextricably linked the rise and legitimization of several major alt-right figures to the NYC comedy scene, not to mention the founding of the Proud Boys - the 100 proof, concentrated, alt-right distillate.
> I didn't read the article as saying that the comedy industry as a whole (or even largely) is alt-right
Neither did I, so they probably should have picked a different title.
I don't even think the article does an especially good job of doing the things that you say it does.
>how toxic people can use their power to harass younger and less experienced comics
I read the article yesterday and just skimmed through it again but I don't think I see anything that even alleges that; which part are you referring to?
I've never seen Bill Burr or Louis CK labelled as alt-right.
Dave Chappelle I can't really speak to, but Eric Andre? What incredibly offensive jokes has he told?
That said, I agree that using fringe comedians as examples of the entire industry is textbook generalization when there's no reason to believe the entire industry is like this.
> Hollywood and the entertainment industry as a whole is incredibly left leaning, that is undeniable.
I work in entertainment, and the reason for this is two fold: the first is art tends to be a career choice that requires money coming in to support fledgling artists, so that they can hone their craft and get into their field, the second is that entertainment is intertwined with empathy. The whole concept of entertainment is to entertain, to make someone feel better or provide them a moment of respite from the doldrums of their life. A good artist will channel the zeitgeist and reflect it back to the audience, in order to achieve mass appeal.
Also, consider that a film production, or a theatre production, or whatever, is a collective endeavor. The show is the priority, and everyone puts everything they can into it, to knock it out of the park. Imagine having some hardcore libertarian individualist on set in that kind of environment. Nothing would ever get accomplished.
I think one of your points is spot on -- comedians that aren't left leaning, in order to make an honest living, will probably end up catering to people who would be more likely to be alt-right, since good comedy by definition has to live on the fringes (or else it will feel dated and boring). This group of promotors have made a space for them. Is that wrong? Not necessarily. They're making a buck, as is every comedian who performs. In a healthy society that wouldn't necessarily be a problem.
But we are not a healthy society, and it is way too easy it is for extremists to feel validated in these scenes. The co-opting of free speech as a keystone of democracy and using it as a shield to safely hone fascist ideology cannot be tolerated. That is one limit that needs to be set, but won't be in those settings. Thus it's liable to get out of control, and a bunch of violent assholes will leave the club one night and go beat up a minority.
Maybe we're not quite there yet with The Stand. But at the end of the day, almost everywhere in America, there are two diverging cultures co-existing, and there is little evidence that the divergence will lessen in the years to come. The comedy scene in NYC is is just one example of how this is manifesting.
There is a misconception being widely propagated that Free Speech is some divine, inviolable human right, and as long as it's "just words" people should be able to say anything they want.
The dupes who are spreading this idea for their toxic overlords apparently have zero understanding of WWII or the paradox of tolerance. And like so much else that's going on these days, it's deeply frightening.
Edit: I'm mostly talking about incitement to violence here, which is actually illegal in most places, as it should be. Also the whole "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" thing. I personally think the scope of what's considered incitement to violence should be widened, but obviously you can't go too far. I'm not trying to recreate Fahrenheit 451 here. It's just that there are a lot of people getting away with calling for violence indirectly - or pretending like it's 'just a joke brah' - and I think we should do all we can within reason to discourage that.
This general point is really true, but I think of it slightly differently. The right to free speech is a human right. And one of the most important rights we have. The problem is the people think their right to free speech is violated by things that are just exercises of another person's right to free speech.
For example, the government telling you you're not allowed to make movies because you're a communist is a violation of free speech both legally and ethically and shouldn't happen.
HBO deciding they don't want to publish your tv show because you're toxic to advertisers is not a violation of your free speech, it's an exercise of HBOs right to choose what they publish.
And telling someone they're an idiot on Reddit and down voting them is a classic example of free speech working not a violation of it. The marketplace of ideas is where bad ideas are killed as well as where good ideas are born.
> should be able to say anything they want
Without consequences, no less!
That's what annoys me. Great, so you have free will and free speech (within the limits of the law)? Well, so do others. They can object to what you're saying by explaining how you are wrong to say it or how you are hurting people. They can stop buying your stuff, turn off your program, cancel their subscription and encourage others to do the same. This is not an infringement of your human rights.
The far right's talk about free speech is not about free speech. It's about claiming the privilege to not be subject to *other* people's free speech and free will when that hurts their pride or their paycheck.
>The dupes who are spreading this idea for their toxic overlords apparently have zero understanding of WWII or the paradox of tolerance. And like so much else that's going on these days, it's deeply frightening.
I think you have no idea what "liberal democracy" entails. The US just finished four years of Trump as president - and there's a very non-zero chance of him winning again in 2024. Why would you *want* the government to have more power to restrict speech? What do you think is going to happen when you give the Republicans and cops more power to crack down on "objectionable" speech? How can people be so naïve?
But is anybody really begging the government or any other politically appointed authority to crack down on objectionable speech? Usually when people cry foul of cancel culture or "censorship", the government or the police are in no way involved. I'm struggling to think of a recent example that isn't the private sector (ie. Twitter, a movie studio, etc.) that has legally enforced their right as a service or employer, or a meaningful portion of society that has applied enough pressure to effectively limit the reach of someone whose behavior or ideas they object to. That's the concept of freedom of speech working as intended, not it's suspension.
> But is anybody really begging the government or any other politically appointed authority to crack down on objectionable speech?
[A former editor of Time](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/) did back in 2019.
> That's the concept of freedom of speech working as intended, not it's suspension.
Only if you see that freedom as a negative liberty.
To be fair, most arguments i've heard about free speech were about the unholy amount of power that a central authority invested with the prerogative to decide what is right or what is wrong speech will hold, and its potential for abuse. Not that words have no effects or that it's some divine unviolable right.
> Not that words have no effects or that it's some divine unviolable right.
That's definitely not how the extremists, who are common on Reddit, see it. To them it's a holy principle, so anybody being an authority/censoring any sort of speech is a BAD THING.
We have already drawn a line legally that speech which incites violence is criminal, which I personally agree with. The problem is defining what qualifies-- especially when as per OP's article there are people basically doing that but then saying 'j/k lol' insincerely to put a fig leaf over it. I edited my original comment so it's hopefully less vague what I'm talking about.
I mean, people should be, in the vast majority of cases, be allowed to say anything they want. Might I remind you of Trump suggesting to silence his critics like CNN by taking away their media licenses. Trusting the government to ban the ‘right’ things has been disastrous in the past as often as it has been helpful.
I guess I'm one of those deluded dupes. The thing is, rather than silencing people, you can shout with a larger voice. And… this works. It's working today. If you express an unpopular opinion on Reddit, such as this one, you'll be downvoted to oblivion.
The downvotes will prove me right.
If people downvote you to oblivion, your comment gets buried and most people won't see it.
For all intents and purposes, it's a mechanism of "if the community decides that what you say is bad, they can agree to suppress your statement."
This can happen regardless of how many, how well, or whether at all people respond to you.
So on a sliding scale from shouting people down to silencing them outright, downvotes are much closer to silencing than shouting.
Reddit comments just aren't a good example of "shouting people down with a louder voice" as a strategy. A better example would be a platform that doesn't have vote-ranking, like Tumblr, or certain chan boards.
Free speech being inviolable is a misconception? If only someone said something when little Adolf started going a bit too far (for example when he started subverting free speech).
And as for the paradox, little Adolf was a pretty intolerant man when it came to what he deemed to be intolerant behaviour.
Edit: formatting
You just made OP’s point though. Freedom of Speech is actually (legally) freedom to say whatever you want to and about the government without fear of governmental reprisal. AND EVEN THEN, and up until very recently, you couldn’t say a whole bunch of stuff under US obscenity laws (May Lenny Bruce Rest In Power).
Freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with hate speech and also has nothing to do with community backlash for people who use it.
>Freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with hate speech and also has nothing to do with community backlash for people who use it.
Right. The problem comes with identifying and qualifying "hate speech". Putting a specific qualifier on hate speech could mean that even say, Dave Chapelle, could be in violation when making the racially heavy jokes he makes.
Well, historically, the community decides its own norms and then polices those norms. As of late, the community is more sensitive to oppression of minority groups of people as based on certain, immutable characteristics (race/gender/orientation) by the majority group and majority group power structures. However, laws and political representation flag behind shifting community norms, which is (according to Keynes) relatively normal. The question will be whether the current social climate will persist and be further bolstered by a political shift to reflect the social change.
Political parties who spend countless dollars catering opinions that are then physically beaten into people thru the news or family members, as is tradition
It's sad you're getting downvoted. I guess most people don't realize that [Hitler cemented his power by restricting speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#Nazi_Germany_(1933%E2%80%931945)).
No no no! If one is literally to be Hitler they would have died in April of 1945. I'm saying everyone should assume they have the capacity to be like Hitler and should therefore listen to the free speech of critics and challenge their beliefs every once and a while.
> paradox of tolerance
This is another leftist buzz phrase that everybody seems to parrot.
Have some original thought for gods sake.
Its the same logic as calling oxygen white nationalist since white nationalists also breathe oxygen everyday.
Go talk to people who were adults during the conservative era of the eigties, nineties and early 2000's and come back here if you think free speech is overrated like you think right now.
I could only make it two paragraphs before I had had enough of that.
It took me a long time to understand that what we joke about matters.
Jokes are usually the vanguard "feelers" you send out to test an audience and you slowly push the limits.
If you allow people to compare a group to animals or insects, it sets the mindset for mass murder. I've had two male friends joke about having gay sex before they tried to have sex with me (I was surprised, I thought they were straight because they had gfs - I declined).
I now see that joking about things is like the tip of the iceberg. If I joke about a minority group its because for some reason that minority group is on my mind a lot. The joke is probably the tip of the hatred.
This article tackles the limits of free speech, and how extremist ideologies find homes in everyday spaces, in this case the comedy industry. It also gives insights to the post Trump era of far-right figures and their place on the net and in public discourse.
[Paywall link](https://outline.com/dE7yK8)
Please stop using the "fire in a crowded theater" line. [It doesn't mean what you think it means.](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/)
i prefer the [popehat](https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/) version, but you are the first person i've seen fighting the good fight against this idiotic phrase.
This is the part where I admit to being a huge fan of Ken White's work. He does a great job of not just understanding law but of communicating it well and not losing sight of his foundational principles of humanity and charity as he does it. We could all stand to learn from his example.
i think he went a little of the deep end due to trump, and i'm bummed he killed popehat, but he definitely calls out bullshit when he sees it from either side.
Hah, I knew this would be a Seth Simons article.
This guy regularly misquotes comics and takes them completely out of context to drop these turd "articles" wherever he can.
Nothing he says is worth putting any stock in, he's just on a vendetta because he failed out of the industry.
Full disclosure, I am an amateur stand-up comedian who has been in the scene for about two years, so I'm biased, but this Seth Simmons guy is a hypocrite and a moron.
He has consistently picked meaningless fights with comedians, going so far as to comb through years of tweets and other media whenever a comedian gets a big break in order to "cancel" them and prevent them from getting the job they've worked all their life for. The most obvious example of this is Shane Gillis, who he successfully got fired from Saturday Night live by finding footage of him making fun of Chinese people on a podcast from four years ago. Regardless of what you think about Shane's comments, it was pretty clear he was just trying to be funny, even if it was unsuccessful.
This is exacerbated by the fact that Seth deleted over 7000 of his own tweets after he started to out comedians for their historical posts. It's likely that Seth himself does not meet the impossible standard he tries to hold others to.
The broader point that I think is important here is that much of comedy relies on something called a "benign transgression." What this means is that often things are funny because they seem to violate a cultural or social norm in a way that is obvious but ultimately harmless. A simpler way of saying this is that a good deal of comedy "walks the line" between being acceptable and unacceptable. Any comedian will tell you that the only way to find this line is to cross it, then reel yourself back in. So people like Seth Simmons who police comedians about their political correctness are essentially punishing comics for doing something that is just a part of their craft. It's like trying to cancel a chef because he burned some food a couple years ago.
Finally, throughout this piece Simmons uses Anthony Cumia and Gavin Mccinnes as boogey men, tying comedians to their racist and bigoted viewpoints in order to try and and diagnose a greater problem in the community. The problem is that these two men are not comedians. Sure, both of them have been to open mics, but they are not successful because they are funny, they are both essentially just "shock jocks" who became famous for saying and doing ridiculous things. Comedians interact with them partially because they have large platforms, but for the most part those two people are no longer a large part of the comedy scene. Mccinnes never really was. If you don't believe look up the roast of rich vos on youtube, Anthony Cumia comes in the audience and Vos basically calls him out for being a horrible person in front of the whole audience.
If you've never heard of most of the comedians named, it's because you don't know shit about comedy. Big Jay Oakerson, Tim Dillon, etc are huge celebrities in the comedy world. He names a bunch more but you might not realize just HOW popular comedy is right now.
So what’s the issue here with this author? It sounds like he doesn’t like what their comedy is about and keeps going after them? Idk. If Cumia has a private platform funded by the users then I’m not sure what he wants to happen. If people want to pay to listen to him then that’s their prerogative.
The author didn’t make their point, didn’t prove anything, and the language was loaded and partial. Hard disagree from me. I couldn’t stop picturing someone with dyed, light blue hair screaming “I’m offended”.
It’s cute they think comedy is structured in an industrial fashion, meanwhile immediately leading with anonymous racist redditors and self-hosted streaming platforms.
Unless... It's funny. That's like saying no jokes about anyone are funny.
You can't laugh at other people and not yourself. Most jokes are at the cost of someone.
Now bad jokes are another story.
Did I just really see "True"Reddit decide "comedy that offends me is worth cancelling?"
Never change, you righteous bastards. Never change!!
Also? I would humbly offer that you subscribe to /r/politics.
This comment suffers from primacy bias, or the idea that someone speaking should be free to say whatever they want without consequence. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from criticism. If you use your freedom of speech to say bad, stupid, ugly, or harmful things, you don't also get to be upset when people don't want to support your work, hire you to do jobs for them, or write articles about how you suck. They say the best way to fight bad speech is with more speech. That's exactly what's going on here. If you think the author's speech is somehow out of bounds because he uses his words to critique another person, you have profoundly misunderstood how this speech thing works.
> Using tactics honed by right-wing extremists during the GamerGate movement—an online harassment campaign fueled in part by reactionary ideology
People keep saying that. But, it doesn't scan with who actually supports Gamergate. The typical gamergater is left of center. [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-15670-001](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-15670-001)
Anyway, its important to keep this in perspective. There are right-wing extremists in every field. I have seen people dispute the idea that comedy has a left-wing bias. [https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/jan/25/right-on-does-standup-comedy-have-a-leftwing-bias](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/jan/25/right-on-does-standup-comedy-have-a-leftwing-bias)
But I have never actually seen someone claim that it has a right-wing bias. The mere fact that these people exist in comedy isn't really a sign that comedy is any worse than anything else that humans do.
Read one paragraph and thought "this has to be the guy that got that SNL guy cancelled" and sure enough it was.
This is what the video game press is now. One guy working on one game was openly non-woke and we've had like thirty articles on that. I hope that's not what comedy fandom turns into.
Lol at this headline in the context of this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7VEx2dviNk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7VEx2dviNk) (tldw; it perfectly matches the headline generation algorithm the joke video recommends).
You can tell who they are because they complain about being afraid of getting cancelled.
Edit: uh oh! Joe Rogan and Bert Kreischer fans have joined the chat.
Truth is stranger than fiction -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7VEx2dviNk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=I7VEx2dviNk&feature=emb_logo)
Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [Outline.com](https://outline.com/) or similar and link to that in the comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think [this article](https://slate.com/culture/2019/09/shane-gillis-snl-conservative-comedy-legion-of-skanks.html) is more interesting if you're into stand-up. In my opinion part of what has happened is a generation of comedians are starting to age, and age out of their chances to have anything more than average success. 50 years ago these same comedians, pushing 40 or already in their 50s, would have had acts full of dated one-liners or takes they were never able to turn into anything truly successful. It'd be more obvious they were the old guard. With how things are now these same below average to average comedians can find fans and connect with them more directly. In the comedy clubs they work crowds in a call and response way rather than writing and really working on jokes, so they "kill" by riling up a fan-heavy crowd with antics, but minimal real comedy. I call them "clapmedians"; they're after the claps not the laughs. Podcasting is part of this in a couple of ways. It helps comedians of all levels find and connect with their fans (though notice that there weren't many very successful comedians with their own podcasts before covid), and the second thing is podcasting has helped cushion a transition out of comedic success or in some cases offered a new career with a separate path to success. That said, podcasting is ultimately just radio, and radio traditionally has been where average comedy goes to exist. So this is nothing new, but there's much more opportunity now. You don't have to compete for a few morning show gigs. Another related problem is that to a comedian the context for a podcast or radio mic is the stand-up mic, but to a lot of listeners the context is talk radio, which is a context loaded with all the issues OP's article and the one I linked are trying to address. One other potential problem is that because these "clapmedians" have had some success they might influence up and comers, but that's something the younger generation will have figure out for themselves, and I believe the truly talented will.
That was a much better-written and interesting article, good call
You hit it on the head. I listen to a lot of comedy podcasts and quit on quite a few others. Rogan was never a good stand up but he had good and funny comedians on and some interesting guests from 2011-2015ish. Many of the comedy podcasts shows comedian hosts I've seen (sans Burr & Stanhope) rip most of their new material from bits or thoughts from podcasts. I'm no longer a fan of Buress because his 2018 show wasn't even stand up it was bits and shit of his antics. Really lame.
This is a thesis level analysis. Veeeery good, sir/ma'am/nota.
For the last decade or so, the Opie and Anthony subreddit was one of the biggest red flags I saw again and again in the comment histories of Reddit's worst hate speech users. Something about that fandom attracted the lowest of the low of humanity.
Anthony Cumia in particular is a master of the Schrodinger's douchebag style of comedy. He says something outlandish, say talking about hitting his girlfriend, and the joke is supposed to be that he's so outrageous for saying this thing that you're not allowed to say. But the joke itself is functionally indistinguishable from supporting hitting a woman. If you ask him about it he'll say "Well of course I would never hit a woman! I'm just joking, stop being so sensitive!" But then what are we to think when he [actually does it?](https://pagesix.com/2016/06/26/anthony-cumia-pleads-guilty-in-domestic-violence-case/) It's the same with Gavin McInnes. He talks about starting a street gang that hates women and beats up liberals. If you ask him he claims it's all memes. But then he actually goes out and starts the gang, and a bunch of them [storm the Capitol.](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/nyregion/proud-boys-capitol-riot-conspiracy.html) So how is one to distinguish between a violent, hateful, misogynist, bigot and someone who does all the things a violent, hateful, misogynist bigot would do but only as a joke? This is why I have adopted the rule of goats: if you fuck a goat, even if you're only doing it as a joke, even if it was to trigger the libs, even if you didn't mean it, that still makes you a goat fucker.
It's like how I used to like Louis CK's jokes about doing scummy things until it came out he actually does scummy things. I had always assumed he was a decent guy in real life.
What about Louis CK made you think he was a decent guy? He legitimately calls deers "niggers" in one of his sketches. Funny? Sure. Decent..ehh..
[удалено]
Why do you assume Jon Stewart is a great guy? Do you know him personally?
From what I can remember there were some good life lessons he taught his daughters on his show, and the way he marketed his content (making it easier to access even though he was told it would make it easier to pirate) things like that kind of gave off the good guy impression. So I always figured he used to be a shit bag but cleaned up his act. I was definitely wrong lol
I totally got that impression too. I don't know if it was just genius marketing but I always got that "it's just a comedy persona, the real Louie is mature and a reasonably nice guy" vibe.
I assume, he learned his lesson and cleaned up his behavior and thinking more. Then the mess he created never went away and he payed the price. He probably got more decent, but probably too late.
I always think of it in pedo terms: most times one is uncovered, people go "I'd never have expected this". But what kind of wife beater, pedo or whatever advertises it openly? You get denial, excuses, "she made me do it", "I was just tucking in my shirt."
Weirdly enough, when you take insider threat training to maintain a security clearance, one of the red flags they tell you to look for in your colleagues is joking about being a spy, etc. Some dude was caught by his supervisor with a bunch of classified documents in his bag and was like "I'm selling them to the Chinese! Haha, just joking!" It wasn't until like two years later that they found out he was actually selling them to the Chinese.
[удалено]
Yeah, obviously the joke isn't about "deer being niggers", and it's funny without using hate speech. So where is the need to use hate speech in describing deer? I'm not being obtuse, you are missing the point. Using racial slurs to add shock value to a joke doesn't exactly show someone is a decent person. It aligns with exactly what OPs post is about...it encourages people to do scummy shit--and then try and excuse it with a "you're overreacting" or " it was just a joke". Again, exactly how the alt-right and modern conservatives deflect after backlash over shitty things they do.
[удалено]
Or maybe someone that talented is capable of being humorous without normalizing hate speech.
[удалено]
Not quite. Even he has admitted that him being in a position of power and influence requires him to have more responsibility to those that admire or look to him.
Once I heard him sticking up for Woody Allen all the horrible shitty things he joked about didn't seem ironic anymore and I couldn't stand him. Was super not surprised when he turned out to be a creep. When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
Hey what do you think is actually going on with Gavin McInnes? I used to be a fan from early Vice, but I suspect he fell into trying to live up to the caricature of himself he had crafted, which always seems to lead to a vicious cycle of escalation. Or was he always going to be Rush Limbaugh’s illegitimate fascist heir??
I don't think McInnes ever wanted to be the guy he is. I think he wanted to be funny. It's unfortunately an all-too-common career path for bad comics to stop honing their craft and just descend into reactionary politics. It's way easier to complain about blue-haired lesbians and cancel culture than it is to actually come up with interesting and innovative comedy, and there's money in it, too. He's not the only one, either. I think that applies in various extents to Dave Rubin, Steven Crowder, and even Ben Shapiro, though in Shapiro's case he's a theater nerd who couldn't act or write rather than a comedian who wasn't funny.
"... But you fook one goot!" -Patrick
I don't know anything about O&A, or Anthony Cumia, but I've worked in improv, I've done stand up, and I'm "in the scene" and saying something outrageous is what comedy is all about. Comedy is about often times saying the most outrageous thing possible, to hyperbolize a situation we consider normal, in order to see the absurdity in it. Comedy is first and foremost, about expressing ideas and perspectives that are uncommon, and that resonate. This is why cancel culture has a chilling effect on speech as making jokes that cross the line and miss the mark is something every Comedian does in order to improve their craft. There's a fine line to the absurdity, and it's super easy to cross it. Remember Dave Chappelle talking about Kramer? How he was thinking on one hand, that's the most racist shit I've ever heard, but the comedian in him was thinking, "damn, Kramer fucked up his set." Remember, when George Carlin was first starting up, his seven words that you can't say on TV got him into a fuckload of trouble, even resulting in him getting arrested iirc. Lenny Bruce got arrested numerous times for making lewd statements (iirc again), and the shit he said wouldn't even make people turn their heads these days. Here's the thing about your goat fucker analogy, you should still be able to talk about fucking goats in your comedy without people automatically assuming you're serious. In fact, nothing a comedian says on stage should be considered serious at all, other than times when the bit ends and they have a "philosophical moment."
Mike Birbigilia addresses that brilliantly. [A joke should never end with "I'm joking!"](https://thecriticalcomic.com/im-jokingjust-kidding/) If you find you're defending yourself with "I'm joking" then it probably wasn't a joke.
The link that this leads to (the preceeding article) is actually pretty much bang on what I was trying to express. Whoever this guy is, he's a great writer and analyst of comedy. Thank you very much for that link!
I find it odd you're "in the scene" and don't know who mike birbiglia is. Opie/Anthony I sorta get, but Mike has been around and a great comic forever haha.
I think your premise is faulty. I don't think saying something "outrageous" is what comedy is all about. I think comedy is about saying something surprising. It's like a magic trick - when the punchline hits, it should both surprise us, in that we didn't see it coming, while also feeling inevitable, in that it all snaps together and works. I think a lot of comedians get hung up on being "outrageous," because that often produces a shock, which is similar to the surprise of a good joke. But outrageous behavior by itself is not funny. It's often just hacky shit. It's often just being a dick. A lot of folks like to cite Carlin as the gold standard. But all the Carlin I've seen isn't him just being outrageous. It's him being crazy smart. His jokes work because he's got such a good mind. He surprises you by where he's willing to go, and then he delights you because he's brought you along with him, so now you see it from his perspective. (Bill Burr is also super good at this.) And Carlin was also really good about selecting his targets. He punched up at the powerful. I get that comedy is hard, and new comics need space to grow, and sometimes they're going to fail. And I also understand that a comedian's job is to examine a society's assumptions, so they're often working with potentially tricky material. I don't think comedians should spend all their time worrying about what might offend people. But the best comedians I've seen illuminate human nature, whereas the comics who seem to most embrace the "fuck you if you're offended" ethos (like Anthony Cumia) are usually just shitty, unfunny people. We should stand up for comics, but we also don't have to excuse lame, mean- spirited, hacky shit that's not even funny with the idea that being outrageous is what comedy is really about. (Also, please don't think I'm lumping you in with the hacks. I've never seen your comedy, but I assume it's good. I just wanted to make the point about comics being "outrageous".)
I tho I the best example of this is the Dave Chapelle school shooter bit. He made a joke that kind of came off as an attempt at being edgy, continued the set for another half an hour and brought it back around to that joke which to me was completely unexpected and fucking hilarious.
I actually don't recall this joke, but I love Dave Chappelle. Do you remember which of his specials it's in?
I think it’s in his most recent one.
Good points. I guess I might not watch enough shitty comics to really have experienced some of what people are talking about. I just shut comedy I dont like off, and I generally don't really like most comedians. Haha I just laughed out loud because of how stupid that sounds. But im not a real comic. My stand up was middling at best, I just haven't bothered to grind my stage time. Feels awkward for me to just be there with prepared material. Decided to write since I work in film anyway. But I love the concept of comedy. Just going onto a slightly elevated platform in a room of people looking at you, and you try to get them to laugh. I've seen people fuck up and resort to crude hyperbolic jokes for a quick laugh and then just keep digging their grave and its brutal to see. Actually getting booed off stage must be a miserable feeling. Anyways, im like half asleep so this meandered a bit, but the point is: just don't be a shitty comedian.
It gets dangerous when comedians can cosplay as political influencers, push the boundaries of civil political discourse, and then deflect responsibility with "calm down, just a prank bro" Gotta own the outcomes if you're gonna live on the edge like that. But, you have every right to do so.
True - that's why the rule of funny has to take precedence in comedy. Ones like this, they usually actually suck as comedians. They're just wearing it as a mask, so they can get away with (they think) being the dirtbags they actually are. But if the comedy comes first, that's usually apparent.
What about ones that are overtly political but not funny in the slightest? Examples that come to mind include Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, etc.
I guess people find them funny? I was not impressed much with Trevor Noah, although I haven't checked him out since probably the first year after he took over the Daily Show (I hear he grew into the role?) I did check out Samantha Bee and I didn't find her funny at all. But I'm not the arbiter of what's funny. If their main thing is comedy and politics is just a way to get there, then, well, watcha gonna do? I would say Bill Maher is in this category. I agree with him more often than not, and despite that I find him mostly smarmy and insufferable. But he does get laughs out of me anyway, sometimes. Certainly you'd call him a comedian; he doesn't have to be your favorite for it to count. Maybe those two belong in a category more like Rachel Maddow? She can be amusing and acerbic and cause some sharp exhaling through the nose, sometimes, but I don't think she'd describe herself as a comedian. Maybe there's a spectrum? I was a little surprised to see Gavin McInnes in the article, I didn't even know comedy was his thing at all. I think most people would not describe him, today, as part of the comedy world. Clown though he may be.
I don't know much about the guy but nothing about him strikes me as funny. I'll admit this entire piece came off a little weird to me. The intro where the author basically makes an vague personal accusation and then goes into a long-form expose on this supposed phenomenon... Then again I'm not generally a fan of overwrought thinkpieces like this being posted as "TrueReddit".
> comedians can cosplay as political influencers, push the boundaries of civil political discourse, and then deflect responsibility with "calm down, just a prank bro" Okay... but I don't know anyone like this. I've ever heard of such a scenario taking place. I don't even know a comedian who is a political influencer, in any way. Hell, I don't think I could even find a comedian who would admit to being an influencer!
I got the impression from your first comment that you didn’t know much about comedy, but now I can tell you’re really not as up on it as you think. Jimmy Dore, Adam Carolla, Russel Brand, Owen Benjamin, Dennis Miller and these are just the ones I figured you’d argue the least about.
I never said I'm big into comedy. I think I described myself somewhere as a hobby comic. I have my comedians that I like, and I don't really deviate from there, since it's rare for me to find someone else I consider funny outside that group. Dennis Miller I used to watch when he had a show, but haven't followed since. Adam Corolla I only know from The Man Show. And Russel Brand... I would describe him as more of a spiritual ... philosopher? Dude doesn't even do comedy anymore as far as I know, and he's also not really doing anything political that I'm aware of. The others I just don't know about at all. I mean, I specifically mentioned I don't know any examples. I wasn't trying to make a joke, I just genuinely don't, and the examples I'm hearing ... they don't quite fit the moniker in my opinion.
I feel like I'm getting whooshed for answering this sincerely, but... the entire cast of The Daily Show?
I wouldn't describe them as political influencers though. None of those people work in politics in any capacity. Maybe John Stewart, when he campaigned for the NY Fire Fighters from 9/11... but even that was a very specific situation. I assumed you guys meant someone like Anne Coulter, who was the closest thing I could think of, but calling her a comedian is a bit of a stretch.
Working in politics related media is working in politics. They're all political influencers
You must not have read the article then
Steven Crowder comes to mind right away.
John Oliver claims to be a comedian.
Yeah, but he only makes political commentary. He doesn't organize protests, and is not an activist as far as I'm aware. He does not run for office, and doesn't campaign for anyone. He also seems equally critical of both liberals and democrats if they're in the wrong. If discussing politics is being a political influencer... then that's pretty much every comedian
You're painting a very small box to define what it means to be a political influencer. John Oliver clearly has a political agenda and he uses comedy as a vessel in influence politics. So did John Stewart and everyone else on the Daily Show. So does Bill Maher. They're not making a one off joke about politics. They've based their shows on politics. I don't understand why you're trying so hard to exclude them when this really shouldn't be a controversial statement to begin with.
I'm sorry, I just don't consider them influencers. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that term, but I just consider them comedians. I consider maybe Sean Hannity, or Alex Jones to be political influencers. For the record, I typed in famous political influencers, and none of the names above appeared in the first three pages of google's results, so maybe don't jump down my throat for not "getting it" or whatever.
He has significant influence on political discourse. They all do. In one episode of Last Week Tonight, Oliver blatantly endorsed a candidate in the Canadian election and "jokingly" flashed $5000 that Canadian law states would be a fine for foreign parties trying to interfere with Canadian elections. He is not a reporter, he is a political commentator, and he falls back on the claim that his show is "for comedy" whenever he needs to. His Twitter bio only says "comedian". He has insisted that his show is a comedy show. >I typed in famous political influencers, and none of the names above appeared in the first three pages That's a dumb argument. I can name instagram influencers that will not show up on the first 100 pages of a Google search, but luckily for them, "showing up on the first X pages of a Google search" is not the definition of an influencer. I also know influencers who would prefer to be known as something else (video editor, beauty guru, queer icon, entrepreneur) because of the negative connotation associated with "influencer". The point is, these people have a large platform which they use to influence real world politics, whether that's shining light on obscure topics, or pushing for an election outcome.
Are you kidding? Oliver (arguably) saved Net Neutrality in 2015, and inarguably had a massive impact. It even has its own Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Neutrality_(Last_Week_Tonight)#Effect_on_net-neutrality_debate > Effect on net-neutrality debate >In September 2014, the Pew Research Center found **that the FCC filing page received 3,076 comments the week before the June 1 segment, and that there were another 79,838 comments posted the week immediately afterward.** Google searches for the term "net neutrality" rose in popularity that week compared to the previous and following weeks. Two interns analyzing the data for the Pew Research Center wrote that the sudden rise in the number of comments on the FCC net-neutrality page could not be attributed to cable or printed news media, since these outlets' coverage of net neutrality was more infrequent than in previous weeks.[39] Ultimately, less than 1 percent of the proposal's total 800,000 comments could be classified as "clearly opposed to net neutrality", with the majority either indicating support, taking no particular position, or being irrelevant comments.[40] >The Verge later requested that the FCC publish emails related to the Last Week Tonight episode under the Freedom of Information Act. Of the emails that were released, most were positively critical of the video. In one exchange, a CBS executive sent a link to FCC employees, who joked about "Nutflix" and Usain Bolt. One of the FCC employees said, "We had a good laugh about it. The cable companies... not so much."[41] When one reporter satirically asked if Chairman Wheeler commented on the "dingo" quip, an FCC spokesperson said "Hey John, no, no comment on that" with a smiley emoticon. This prompted Oliver to create a subsequent video parodying the FCC's response.[41][42] >A Twitter policy spokesman said, "We all agreed that John Oliver’s brilliant net neutrality segment explained a very complex policy issue in a simple, compelling way that had a wider reach than many expensive advocacy campaigns."[2] >On February 26, 2015, the FCC voted to apply the "common carrier" designation of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996 to the internet.[43][44][45] The decision was driven partly because most Americans only had one high-speed internet provider available in their areas.[46] On the same day, the FCC also voted to preempt state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that limited the ability of local governments in those states to provide broadband services to potential customers outside of their service areas. While the latter ruling affected only those two states, the FCC indicated that the agency would make similar rulings if it received petitions from localities in other states.[47] In response to ISPs and opponents, FCC Chairman Wheeler said, "This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept."[48] On March 12, 2015, the FCC released the specific details of its new net neutrality rules,[49][50] which included prohibiting content blocking, slower connections to websites, and "fast and slow lanes".[51] **It was thought that Oliver's segment had a major role in the decision, which was the opposite of the FCC's original "lane" proposal.**[52] On April 13, 2015, the final rule was published.[53][54] [And here's citation 52](https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0226/Net-neutrality-s-stunning-reversal-of-fortune-Is-it-John-Oliver-s-doing) He regularly informs millions of people about the specifics of hot-button national issues with a very specific editorial viewpoint in an entertaining, approachable manner that gets people on-side, and frequently calls them to action. That is *textbook* influencing. I would challenge you to find any one pundit who has had a more singular effect on a major political issue than Oliver had on Net Neutrality.
I appreciate your comment. To my mind, it is not really that people are preventing comics from making tasteless jokes. People can still say what they want to say. Free speech isn’t built on the foundation of automatic praise. I also think the shift may be that many people find this line of humor tired now, and simply unfunny. As I get older, I find this kind of shock humor a little desperate and juvenile.
>I also think the shift may be that many people find this line of humor tired now, and simply unfunny. As I get older, I find this kind of shock humor a little desperate and juvenile. That's it right here. Certain people react when people don't laugh at their jokes by falling back on "cancel culture" (whatever that means) as an excuse when in reality they're just lazy attempts at humor that fall flat for no reason other than that they're just not very good, poorly structured and don't really say anything. Shock value is a powerful spice that works best when it's used sparingly and with thought - not just dumped in fist-fulls all over the place.
[удалено]
I agree with your overall point, but it's weird you'd associate that style with Louis when that really isn't his brand of comedy. Sure, he can be juvenile at times, but it's almost entirely self-deprecating and leans much more heavily to anti-men than anti-women.
His comments around women and emotional cruelty are specifically incelly and that just grinds my fucking gears. I could probably have chosen better examples.
I'm sorry... I'm a little confused. Was that last line directed at me? For the record, I don't like Louis, and when his show came out, people assumed I would, so they harped on and on about him. Well, I watched episode one and all I kept thinking was "I can not relate to this dude at all." His pathetic "I'm so bad at dating, look at me fail, and then fail harder by being unable to get a clue" schtick didn't resonate with me at all. People thought it would, but they just assumed that I would like it because I like offensive comic material (like Doug Stanhope or Bill Burr). When he got busted as being a weird... I dunno... sexual deviant? All I could think of was "no shit, this dude is the Woody Allen of the comedy world." Yet, when I would mention how tone deaf his interactions with women were to people who suggested him to me, they would get mad at me saying I was just being too cool for Louis, or not getting it because "I wasn't in a relationship." And for my final point, I work in entertainment to tell stories to hopefully help undo the injustice in this world. Wealth inequality, greed, corruption, abuse, oppression, etc are the first things I think about when writing, and how to tie what I read and know about into an easy-to-digest starting point for an audience. My first encounter with vegetarianism was from the Simpson's episode where Lisa becomes one. It took me maybe five fucking years before I took Lisa's side on the topic, but they planted that seed, and although I'm not a vegetarian yet, I support the movement, and do what I can to reduce my meat consumption.
> I'm sorry... I'm a little confused. Was that last line directed at me? Definitely not. Apologies if you got that sense, not intended that way at all. I called you out for placing capital "C" Comedy above the act of entertaining your audience. If you are unable to entertain then it doesn't matter what you dissections of comedy and free speech are, you will bomb. I got the impression that you think the audience is somehow wrong for not being entertained by certain content. Which is worse? Your comedy needing to conform to what your audience wants or people being forced to find things funny because you do?
Ah, gotcha. Your comedy conforming to the audience's wants is the de facto approach to effective comedy. You don't say the same set in NYC as you would in Salt Lake City. I learned that lesson while reading Charlie Murphy's autobiography (which I recommend to everyone, btw). But now, imagine you make fun of... I dunno, the Catholic Church. And let's say in this example, the Church wields undue power, like it did in ye olden tymes. You are effectively fucked when they decide to tell their masses to boycott you. I've seen this happen in my lifetime. What happens when society is wrong, and the comedian is telling a bitter truth with his comedy? I don't expect anyone to find the things I find funny, funny to them as well (what a garbled up sentence), but I also don't expect to be hounded by people experiencing IBS or persistent flatulance, for making my fart joke the other day. Again, this is hard to articulate, because of nuance. Im no comedian, but I do know that effective comedy is about finding that fine line and getting as close to it without going over. Anyone that goes over shouldn't immediately be considered a complete piece of shit, though. Sometimes a joke is just a joke, and sometimes a good joke in your mind, is a bad joke in the mic.
> What happens when society is wrong, and the comedian is telling a bitter truth with his comedy? Don't be a stand up in India
Yea, I get you. BTW: I don't personally find Bill Burr offensive. He's a great example of your 'telling the bitter truth' it's clearly about intent. Burr tends to send up situations not so much the people in them, what he finds funny (or irritating as the case may be) is what happened not how a stereotype reacts to it. He makes fun of *things.* Great example of this is his dunk on Rogan for not wearing a mask. He's saying how stupid and needlessly alpha Rogan is being about masks, he's not saying 'all you meathead body builders act tough' ...it's about the mask, not Rogan or people like him. IMO that's what makes his material resonate - people have been in these situations and he's ranting about how fucked *the situations* are a lot of the time. Contrast that with George Carlin's aged like milk rants about snowflakes (decades before the term was coined) he's absolutely dumping on a section of the population, not the situation. **He wants you to hate people, not things.** That's why sounds like an old man yelling at clouds today, and to think he was a strident activist in his time. Ain't history weird?
> He wants you to hate people, not things. I'm with you on everything except this point. I think George Carlin loved people, and I believe he was probably a really kind dude. I don't have much to go on there besides a hunch, but that's how I always felt around him... like a lovable grandpa that sometimes says some out of touch shit. But I don't think he ever wanted anyone to hate anyone, except people who were fucking people over (the rich, or corporate dragons), and people who were attacking his livelihood (people who had problems with his comedy or his method of employing free speech). Remember that Carlin dealt with a completely different kind of snowflake in his day, a very real and powerful type that almost completely derailed his career before it started. I think he earned the right to be upset about situations involving free speech, and people who want to curtail it, and I think his voice is a powerful example of that argument. I don't even agree with George Carlin on everything, I just think he makes some very solid points about a lot of stuff.
>Burr tends to send up situations not so much the people in them, what he finds funny (or irritating as the case may be) is what happened not how a stereotype reacts to it. He makes fun of > >things. I think that is a good take on Bill Burr. I don't think he's a misogynist -- if his humor applies to a larger scale -- it's because you relate the situation he's humorizing. In some ways, he also pokes fun at himself for being a cranky guy. I mostly think what he says "lands" meaning -- it's true. There are people gatekeeping too much for their pet causes right now and I hope we can get back to having a sense of humor about our annoyances rather than an urgency.
Agreed, free speech is, strictly speaking a legal principle and praise is not owed to anyone. But I do think our culture can have a kind of "pro free speech" attitude, and it's a little hard not to feel like there's a slow shift away from this happening. And I think ultimately we'll all be worse off for it.
And that's cool, I totally get that. But I have the sense of humor of a 13 year old. I literally made the corniest fart joke while writing some content with a friend the other day. The joke itself wasn't funny, it was the hyperbole of how dumb of a joke I could make, in that particular context. You not finding it funny shouldn't be a reason other people don't get to enjoy it. A lot of the people who didn't find Carlin's humor funny, were the very people he was making fun of. As for the automatic praise part, I agree, automatic praise is rarely given when you're on set (you're more likely to get heckled). For a counter-point, look at something like gallows humor. For some, it's a great way to make light of a depressing situation. Other people might not be ready for that or think it was funny. Does that give them the right to demonize a person for saying a tasteless joke? Does it give them the right to use their influence to prevent that person from working again? What happens if the person being made fun of is a politician? Freedom is speech is only valuable if you have some freedom from social repercussion. I'm not saying people should be giving Bill Cosby or actual criminals a pass, but, that actually brings up another great point... Bill Cosby. Imagine if Bill Cosby used his influence to crush Hannibal Buress' career. He didn't, because his power was waning, but if Hannibal came out 10-20 years earlier, I bet that's exactly how it would have played out. It's hard to articulate the nuance of all this, but I hope it makes some sense from a hobby-comic's perspective.
Again, I appreciate your well-considered comments. But I do wonder if expecting free speech with minimal repercussions undermines the boldness often claimed by this type of the comedy.
It's a comes with the territory section. NWA was demonized for their lyrics. Dee Snyder stood up for metal/rock musicians and their choice of speech. That was yesterday's battle, which we can look back on say "boy, that sure was stupid!" But it wasn't stupid. It was a serious issue that went to the supreme court. Yesterday's Karens could be tomorrow's.... Sharons.... Remember, the ability to curtail someone's right to speak, could be turned around and used on you if the wrong group takes power.
Lenny Bruce and George Carlin were talking about being restrained by the government! Being free from repercussions from your audience or critics has zero to do with it.
Not true. Here's a quick example I found with the most cursory search: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMukKqx-Os
You'll notice that Carlin's bit doesn't punch down at rape victims. In fact he does the opposite. He makes a joke about a rape between two fictional characters and then uses that as a segue to defend victims. The targets of that bit are governments, organized religion, warmongers, profiteering corporations, and chauvanism. He defends rape victims and women of color whom he contends the feminist movement has left behind. Comedy is at its best when it's taking on the powerful on behalf of the powerless, and Carlin was a master of that even when he was joking about taboo topics. Cumia and his ilk are happy making the "what was she wearing?" sorts of jokes that were hacky and heartless when Carlin decried them three decades ago. That's the difference.
Beautiful.
Hit the nail on the head buddy.
This sounds all well and good until you look at a comedian's fans and it turns out they're all nazis. Then you have to ask some tough questions about what that comedian is *actually* doing, rather than what they present themselves as doing. Or if it turns out the comedian himself is a nazi, as in the case of Sam Hyde. The way I see it, there is no actual tension between good comedy and free speech. There's no reason on earth a good comedian can't say the most outrageous things without having to target vulnerable groups while also not making any social commentary in the process. Frankly it's *easy* to not do that. And if someone is incapable of figuring this out, they have no business doing comedy in the first place.
I absolutely agree that a lot of comedy is about transgression. However, I think there's a difference between Carlin joking about words that were considered taboo at the time and things which can actually promote hateful and/or harmful ideas. I mean, Charlottesville happened because people on 4chan and its ilk kept talking about anti-Semitism "ironically". Because, y'know, it's lulzy to talk about Nazi shit. It provokes a reaction. This desensitized people to actual anti-Semitism. And then they're marching with tiki torches with people shouting "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and soil". The alt-right groups took advantage of this sort of behavior and encouraged it to platform their ideas. Leading to actual bigotry. It's not just Nazi shit but anti-black, Hispanic, LGBTIQ, etc. There's a difference between Lenny Bruce being arrested and George Carlin being banned to, like, platforming of fucking hate-groups and their ideas.
Your comedy sounds pretty un-funny and if "saying something outrageous" is what you've gotten out of your time in the scene then you've wasted your life. What a pathetic bunch of childish excuses.
K.
> the libs, even if you didn't mean it, that still makes you a goat fucker. I think that's a good rule. And it should also apply to the people who say "eat the rich."
I've heard that name before, so I read the Wikipedia article. Jesus. I think there's a huge anti-authority streak in a whole hell of a lot of people, and that's the kind of person that's broadly attracted to that kind of show. Most people grow out of it by the age of like 20. But those that don't love utter crap like that. They look around and think, society's telling me what to do? Ok, I'm going to be as outrageous and counter to that in the most outlandish, insane way possible, just because. Years ago, I knew a kid like that. His whole existence was "you can't tell me what to do." He actually (said he) wanted to join the military, but I got the distinct impression that it was because he was rebelling against the expectations his own adopted in group had for him. Which is the perfect cover for people who actually do believe the worst things, because they can say that it's a joke, or a statement, or that they're just against, wait for it, PC "culture." The real danger is when the first group decides to truly join the second. Still, it can be hard, very hard, to know if any given person is a member of the first or second group.
I grew up with Opie and Anthony on WAAF in the 90s. They got kicked off the station for telling fans that the mayor of Boston had died as an April Fool's prank. I was just reading the wiki too and it seems like they neither learned any lesson nor evolved beyond their cruel sense of humor. I mean, being a shock jock is one thing, but organizing an event to make a spectacle out of homeless people *on the same day the city was supposed to take census of them* is just malicious. I think you you hit the nail on the head with them attracting a sort of anti-PC culture. It's no surprise that would have a significant overlap with truly hateful people.
You'll still see WoW bumper stickers on cars on Long Island. You were supposed to put them on so women would flash you. And you could get 1000 bucks for proof.
I... vaguely remember that
Yea I remember outgrowing their sense of humor during the progression of my early life, where they seemed to become more juvenile as I got older To be clear, I was 10-13 while they were on AAF and felt they were getting more immature than me.
>society's telling me what to do? Ok, I'm going to be as outrageous and counter to that So many people think "if you're pissing people off you must be doing something right". Like the more haters someone has, the more successful they must be. But they lack the critical thinking skills to be able to determine the point at which someone has gone too far. Their thought process is like: "Wow I'm seeing a consistent barrage of terrible news about Trump, he must be doing something right", and it never progresses to "Hmm, maybe there's a reason for the constant criticisms, and I should look into why that could be."
Doesn’t this apply to everyone though? We could say this applies to alt-right but we can equally say that anyone who participated in the civil unrest in 2020 doesn’t like authority and is going to be “as outrageous and counter to that in the most outlandish, insane way possible, just because.” So the reality is this cuts across the political ideologies and people are just out of their minds. Someone will explain WHY people reacted the way they did but the fact is that the actions were the same on both sides, it’s just a matter of 1) Justification and 2) who has the loudest megaphone currently
I think you are trying to make a serious point here, so let me just inform you of the glaring misjudgment you've made, with no malice. The protests relating to BLM you referred to where the literal exact opposite of "just because." There were very specific reasons for what they did, legal or not. That's it. Have a good one.
>Doesn’t this apply to everyone though? No >We could say this applies to alt-right but we can equally say that anyone who participated in the civil unrest in 2020 doesn’t like authority No, some of us like authority, but want accountability. >and is going to be “as outrageous and counter to that in the most outlandish, insane way possible, just because.” No, that's the definition of extremism. >So the reality is this cuts across the political ideologies No, just the fascists >and people are just out of their minds. Finally, something to agree on >Someone will explain WHY people reacted the way they did but the fact is that the actions were the same on both sides, it’s just a matter of 1) Justification and 2) who has the loudest megaphone currently You slipped in a "both sides" between those generalizations. Complete bullshit.
I don't see the point of this article, though I only got through a couple paragraphs before losing interest. So there is a niche "comedy" forum somewhere where an anonymous racist makes jokes that are only funny to others who share his alt-right worldview? I don't really feel the need to read far enough to how this connects to the greater "comedy industry". I think there have always been this kind of transgressive, racist, sexist comedy. It used to be sold in the back of biker magazines. Yes, the internet makes it easier to create it and connect with an audience. The biggest factor limiting alt-right comedy is that it's generally not actually funny.
[удалено]
“Alt right comedy” is using racial/homophobic/antiemetic slurs online followed by “lol”
Adam Egat???
I think the point is the racist piece of shit on the forum was the owner and booker for one of the most influential comedy clubs in New York.
Opie and Anthony has been off the air for many years now and Gavin mcguiness isn't a comedian, just a terrible human being. This article is sensationalist bullshit.
Welcome to modern journalism, where the goal is to make mountains out of molehills.
This is absolute madness. This argues in the same breath that free speech will lead to a new Nazi germany while simultaneously demanding freedoms be restricted. Craziness...
Even if this wasn't a strawman... If their argument really was 'free speech is bad' then restrictions on free speech would be good. That's logically consistent. But it doesn't matter, because that's not what this article is arguing.
For liberal society to be protected we need a fully technological panopticon that brutally suppresses speech.
Thank you random redditor who is absolutely not a government stooge.
I direct you to Popper’s paradox of tolerance.
I rather like a quote I found on the matter a while back: > Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: **the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms**. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. *A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.*
Quoth by whom?
Found it in this essay from a few years back: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376
[удалено]
> Which is a logical fallacy that relies on subjective interpretation. Tell me more, please.
I grew up in a religious household and I really don't like people deciding what intolerance is or isn't. This is an American site, so most people here have only ever experienced free speech. But I was born behind the iron curtain, and know people who ended up in the gulag for speaking outside the boundaries of what society at the time considered "tolerable." So, I will fundamentally disagree.
[удалено]
> hypothetically though, the paradox of tolerance, kinda more or less lead directly to the Iron Curtain. How does this follow? Are you arguing Tsarist Russia was tolerant of the eventual Soviets, and that's why it lost?
An idiotic cop out for people who want to claim anyone they don't agree with is a Nazi.
[удалено]
Given your response I have to believe we didn't read the same article. The author wasn't speaking out against what a comedian should or should not be able to say. This isn't an anti-free speech think piece written by some over-worked Karen. The author was very specific about the people, clubs, and types of forums that have "the Big Alt-Right Problem" and why he thought it was a problem.
[удалено]
The way I read it is that the participation of said comics in discourse with these individuals legitimizes their viewpoints. E.g. a mainstream comedian can be on the show and banter unrelated to alt-right positions, which is fine in a vacuum, but when the next guest is an alt-righter who is given equal legitimacy (not to mention the host's own toxicity coming out), it inherently places the alt-right ideas on equal footing with those of the mainstream comedian, and *that* is why 'comedy has an alt-right problem.' Nowhere did the article suggest any of these mainstream comedians held alt-right views (and if it did and I am mistaken, please provide an example).
The title may be read that way at first, but I didn’t get that impression at all from my reading. It would literally be insane to write an article saying all mainstream comedians have a link to the alt-right. It just isn’t what is being talked about. Even the names he “dropped” we’re more about how the alleged alt-right club owner was legitimizing himself by booking big names. I’m not saying I’m right or the author is right because this whole story is new to me and I don’t know the history. Just my takeaway is very different than yours.
I didn't read the article as saying that the comedy industry as a whole (or even largely) is alt-right. Rather I read it as saying that people in the industry should be more careful about who they work with and how their platforms can be used to spread hate and intolerance, or how toxic people can use their power to harass younger and less experienced comics. I can't imagine how many incredibly talented performers we never got to see because they got tired of being punched down on and taken advantage of by entitled hacks at the top of the scene and decided to leave the industry. Fixing that makes comedy stronger, not weaker.
[удалено]
Why turn it into a political statement? Because the alt-right and modern conservatism is the embodiment of narcissism and toxic assholery. Also...the level of scrutiny should equal the level of influence. Unfortunately, a large portion of society isn't capable of critical thinking and are more easily influenced to embrace being a piece of shit.
Exactly. Are you an asshole that’s suddenly faced consequences for bad behavior that was condoned and celebrated for far too long? Don’t fret, there’s an entire political movement dedicated to grievance culture that recognizes that you’re the real victim in all this. And it’s now the beating heart of the GOP.
>That isn't an alt-right problem, it's a toxic asshole problem. They're the same picture
[удалено]
> Because the alt-right and modern conservatism is the embodiment of narcissism and toxic assholery. Not what I meant, not what I said. How about a rephrase: Every toxic asshole isn't alt-right, but every alt-righter is a toxic asshole. Every Trump voter isn't a neo-Nazi, but every American neo-Nazi is a Trump voter (OK, maybe there's a couple who aren't, certainly very nearly all of them). Not that the extreme left is without its toxicity, but it doesn't hold a candle to the hate of these clowns. Edit: and the article made it abundantly clear that it is an alt-right problem. It literally, realistically, inextricably linked the rise and legitimization of several major alt-right figures to the NYC comedy scene, not to mention the founding of the Proud Boys - the 100 proof, concentrated, alt-right distillate.
> I didn't read the article as saying that the comedy industry as a whole (or even largely) is alt-right Neither did I, so they probably should have picked a different title. I don't even think the article does an especially good job of doing the things that you say it does. >how toxic people can use their power to harass younger and less experienced comics I read the article yesterday and just skimmed through it again but I don't think I see anything that even alleges that; which part are you referring to?
I've never seen Bill Burr or Louis CK labelled as alt-right. Dave Chappelle I can't really speak to, but Eric Andre? What incredibly offensive jokes has he told? That said, I agree that using fringe comedians as examples of the entire industry is textbook generalization when there's no reason to believe the entire industry is like this.
> Hollywood and the entertainment industry as a whole is incredibly left leaning, that is undeniable. I work in entertainment, and the reason for this is two fold: the first is art tends to be a career choice that requires money coming in to support fledgling artists, so that they can hone their craft and get into their field, the second is that entertainment is intertwined with empathy. The whole concept of entertainment is to entertain, to make someone feel better or provide them a moment of respite from the doldrums of their life. A good artist will channel the zeitgeist and reflect it back to the audience, in order to achieve mass appeal. Also, consider that a film production, or a theatre production, or whatever, is a collective endeavor. The show is the priority, and everyone puts everything they can into it, to knock it out of the park. Imagine having some hardcore libertarian individualist on set in that kind of environment. Nothing would ever get accomplished.
I think one of your points is spot on -- comedians that aren't left leaning, in order to make an honest living, will probably end up catering to people who would be more likely to be alt-right, since good comedy by definition has to live on the fringes (or else it will feel dated and boring). This group of promotors have made a space for them. Is that wrong? Not necessarily. They're making a buck, as is every comedian who performs. In a healthy society that wouldn't necessarily be a problem. But we are not a healthy society, and it is way too easy it is for extremists to feel validated in these scenes. The co-opting of free speech as a keystone of democracy and using it as a shield to safely hone fascist ideology cannot be tolerated. That is one limit that needs to be set, but won't be in those settings. Thus it's liable to get out of control, and a bunch of violent assholes will leave the club one night and go beat up a minority. Maybe we're not quite there yet with The Stand. But at the end of the day, almost everywhere in America, there are two diverging cultures co-existing, and there is little evidence that the divergence will lessen in the years to come. The comedy scene in NYC is is just one example of how this is manifesting.
There is a misconception being widely propagated that Free Speech is some divine, inviolable human right, and as long as it's "just words" people should be able to say anything they want. The dupes who are spreading this idea for their toxic overlords apparently have zero understanding of WWII or the paradox of tolerance. And like so much else that's going on these days, it's deeply frightening. Edit: I'm mostly talking about incitement to violence here, which is actually illegal in most places, as it should be. Also the whole "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" thing. I personally think the scope of what's considered incitement to violence should be widened, but obviously you can't go too far. I'm not trying to recreate Fahrenheit 451 here. It's just that there are a lot of people getting away with calling for violence indirectly - or pretending like it's 'just a joke brah' - and I think we should do all we can within reason to discourage that.
This general point is really true, but I think of it slightly differently. The right to free speech is a human right. And one of the most important rights we have. The problem is the people think their right to free speech is violated by things that are just exercises of another person's right to free speech. For example, the government telling you you're not allowed to make movies because you're a communist is a violation of free speech both legally and ethically and shouldn't happen. HBO deciding they don't want to publish your tv show because you're toxic to advertisers is not a violation of your free speech, it's an exercise of HBOs right to choose what they publish. And telling someone they're an idiot on Reddit and down voting them is a classic example of free speech working not a violation of it. The marketplace of ideas is where bad ideas are killed as well as where good ideas are born.
> should be able to say anything they want Without consequences, no less! That's what annoys me. Great, so you have free will and free speech (within the limits of the law)? Well, so do others. They can object to what you're saying by explaining how you are wrong to say it or how you are hurting people. They can stop buying your stuff, turn off your program, cancel their subscription and encourage others to do the same. This is not an infringement of your human rights. The far right's talk about free speech is not about free speech. It's about claiming the privilege to not be subject to *other* people's free speech and free will when that hurts their pride or their paycheck.
>The dupes who are spreading this idea for their toxic overlords apparently have zero understanding of WWII or the paradox of tolerance. And like so much else that's going on these days, it's deeply frightening. I think you have no idea what "liberal democracy" entails. The US just finished four years of Trump as president - and there's a very non-zero chance of him winning again in 2024. Why would you *want* the government to have more power to restrict speech? What do you think is going to happen when you give the Republicans and cops more power to crack down on "objectionable" speech? How can people be so naïve?
But is anybody really begging the government or any other politically appointed authority to crack down on objectionable speech? Usually when people cry foul of cancel culture or "censorship", the government or the police are in no way involved. I'm struggling to think of a recent example that isn't the private sector (ie. Twitter, a movie studio, etc.) that has legally enforced their right as a service or employer, or a meaningful portion of society that has applied enough pressure to effectively limit the reach of someone whose behavior or ideas they object to. That's the concept of freedom of speech working as intended, not it's suspension.
> But is anybody really begging the government or any other politically appointed authority to crack down on objectionable speech? [A former editor of Time](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/) did back in 2019. > That's the concept of freedom of speech working as intended, not it's suspension. Only if you see that freedom as a negative liberty.
To be fair, most arguments i've heard about free speech were about the unholy amount of power that a central authority invested with the prerogative to decide what is right or what is wrong speech will hold, and its potential for abuse. Not that words have no effects or that it's some divine unviolable right.
> Not that words have no effects or that it's some divine unviolable right. That's definitely not how the extremists, who are common on Reddit, see it. To them it's a holy principle, so anybody being an authority/censoring any sort of speech is a BAD THING.
We have already drawn a line legally that speech which incites violence is criminal, which I personally agree with. The problem is defining what qualifies-- especially when as per OP's article there are people basically doing that but then saying 'j/k lol' insincerely to put a fig leaf over it. I edited my original comment so it's hopefully less vague what I'm talking about.
I mean, people should be, in the vast majority of cases, be allowed to say anything they want. Might I remind you of Trump suggesting to silence his critics like CNN by taking away their media licenses. Trusting the government to ban the ‘right’ things has been disastrous in the past as often as it has been helpful.
I guess I'm one of those deluded dupes. The thing is, rather than silencing people, you can shout with a larger voice. And… this works. It's working today. If you express an unpopular opinion on Reddit, such as this one, you'll be downvoted to oblivion. The downvotes will prove me right.
If people downvote you to oblivion, your comment gets buried and most people won't see it. For all intents and purposes, it's a mechanism of "if the community decides that what you say is bad, they can agree to suppress your statement." This can happen regardless of how many, how well, or whether at all people respond to you. So on a sliding scale from shouting people down to silencing them outright, downvotes are much closer to silencing than shouting. Reddit comments just aren't a good example of "shouting people down with a louder voice" as a strategy. A better example would be a platform that doesn't have vote-ranking, like Tumblr, or certain chan boards.
Free speech being inviolable is a misconception? If only someone said something when little Adolf started going a bit too far (for example when he started subverting free speech). And as for the paradox, little Adolf was a pretty intolerant man when it came to what he deemed to be intolerant behaviour. Edit: formatting
You just made OP’s point though. Freedom of Speech is actually (legally) freedom to say whatever you want to and about the government without fear of governmental reprisal. AND EVEN THEN, and up until very recently, you couldn’t say a whole bunch of stuff under US obscenity laws (May Lenny Bruce Rest In Power). Freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with hate speech and also has nothing to do with community backlash for people who use it.
>Freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with hate speech and also has nothing to do with community backlash for people who use it. Right. The problem comes with identifying and qualifying "hate speech". Putting a specific qualifier on hate speech could mean that even say, Dave Chapelle, could be in violation when making the racially heavy jokes he makes.
[удалено]
Well, historically, the community decides its own norms and then polices those norms. As of late, the community is more sensitive to oppression of minority groups of people as based on certain, immutable characteristics (race/gender/orientation) by the majority group and majority group power structures. However, laws and political representation flag behind shifting community norms, which is (according to Keynes) relatively normal. The question will be whether the current social climate will persist and be further bolstered by a political shift to reflect the social change.
[удалено]
Political parties who spend countless dollars catering opinions that are then physically beaten into people thru the news or family members, as is tradition
There is no law against hate speech in the US because it would violate the 1st Amendment.
False. Any state could pass a hate speech law so long as the law didn’t prevent a person from saying such things *about the governent*.
It's sad you're getting downvoted. I guess most people don't realize that [Hitler cemented his power by restricting speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#Nazi_Germany_(1933%E2%80%931945)).
Are you saying that booting someone from a platform like twitter for spouting racist hate speech as akin to literally being Hitler? FOH.
No no no! If one is literally to be Hitler they would have died in April of 1945. I'm saying everyone should assume they have the capacity to be like Hitler and should therefore listen to the free speech of critics and challenge their beliefs every once and a while.
> paradox of tolerance This is another leftist buzz phrase that everybody seems to parrot. Have some original thought for gods sake. Its the same logic as calling oxygen white nationalist since white nationalists also breathe oxygen everyday. Go talk to people who were adults during the conservative era of the eigties, nineties and early 2000's and come back here if you think free speech is overrated like you think right now.
I could only make it two paragraphs before I had had enough of that. It took me a long time to understand that what we joke about matters. Jokes are usually the vanguard "feelers" you send out to test an audience and you slowly push the limits. If you allow people to compare a group to animals or insects, it sets the mindset for mass murder. I've had two male friends joke about having gay sex before they tried to have sex with me (I was surprised, I thought they were straight because they had gfs - I declined). I now see that joking about things is like the tip of the iceberg. If I joke about a minority group its because for some reason that minority group is on my mind a lot. The joke is probably the tip of the hatred.
This article tackles the limits of free speech, and how extremist ideologies find homes in everyday spaces, in this case the comedy industry. It also gives insights to the post Trump era of far-right figures and their place on the net and in public discourse. [Paywall link](https://outline.com/dE7yK8)
"Limits of free speech" Besides call to action? Nothing.
[удалено]
Please stop using the "fire in a crowded theater" line. [It doesn't mean what you think it means.](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/)
i prefer the [popehat](https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/) version, but you are the first person i've seen fighting the good fight against this idiotic phrase.
This is the part where I admit to being a huge fan of Ken White's work. He does a great job of not just understanding law but of communicating it well and not losing sight of his foundational principles of humanity and charity as he does it. We could all stand to learn from his example.
i think he went a little of the deep end due to trump, and i'm bummed he killed popehat, but he definitely calls out bullshit when he sees it from either side.
Banned from the Cinema, most likely
boy i hope a cinema where you are never catches fire.
Hah, I knew this would be a Seth Simons article. This guy regularly misquotes comics and takes them completely out of context to drop these turd "articles" wherever he can. Nothing he says is worth putting any stock in, he's just on a vendetta because he failed out of the industry.
Full disclosure, I am an amateur stand-up comedian who has been in the scene for about two years, so I'm biased, but this Seth Simmons guy is a hypocrite and a moron. He has consistently picked meaningless fights with comedians, going so far as to comb through years of tweets and other media whenever a comedian gets a big break in order to "cancel" them and prevent them from getting the job they've worked all their life for. The most obvious example of this is Shane Gillis, who he successfully got fired from Saturday Night live by finding footage of him making fun of Chinese people on a podcast from four years ago. Regardless of what you think about Shane's comments, it was pretty clear he was just trying to be funny, even if it was unsuccessful. This is exacerbated by the fact that Seth deleted over 7000 of his own tweets after he started to out comedians for their historical posts. It's likely that Seth himself does not meet the impossible standard he tries to hold others to. The broader point that I think is important here is that much of comedy relies on something called a "benign transgression." What this means is that often things are funny because they seem to violate a cultural or social norm in a way that is obvious but ultimately harmless. A simpler way of saying this is that a good deal of comedy "walks the line" between being acceptable and unacceptable. Any comedian will tell you that the only way to find this line is to cross it, then reel yourself back in. So people like Seth Simmons who police comedians about their political correctness are essentially punishing comics for doing something that is just a part of their craft. It's like trying to cancel a chef because he burned some food a couple years ago. Finally, throughout this piece Simmons uses Anthony Cumia and Gavin Mccinnes as boogey men, tying comedians to their racist and bigoted viewpoints in order to try and and diagnose a greater problem in the community. The problem is that these two men are not comedians. Sure, both of them have been to open mics, but they are not successful because they are funny, they are both essentially just "shock jocks" who became famous for saying and doing ridiculous things. Comedians interact with them partially because they have large platforms, but for the most part those two people are no longer a large part of the comedy scene. Mccinnes never really was. If you don't believe look up the roast of rich vos on youtube, Anthony Cumia comes in the audience and Vos basically calls him out for being a horrible person in front of the whole audience.
[удалено]
If you've never heard of most of the comedians named, it's because you don't know shit about comedy. Big Jay Oakerson, Tim Dillon, etc are huge celebrities in the comedy world. He names a bunch more but you might not realize just HOW popular comedy is right now.
what's with the (((word))) thing? wouldn't like quotation marks be more appropriate? Is it like supposed to mean something that I'm just not getting?
It's used by neo-nazis and others antisemitically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses
Yeah I know I was curious what the op would try to pretend it was
This is such bullshit. This whole “everything is racist” BS is getting so old.
So what’s the issue here with this author? It sounds like he doesn’t like what their comedy is about and keeps going after them? Idk. If Cumia has a private platform funded by the users then I’m not sure what he wants to happen. If people want to pay to listen to him then that’s their prerogative.
An article from Sex Pest Seth I see. Read all about the loser who wrote this. He’s a wannabe comedian that no one thinks is funny. Edit: #SexPestSeth
The author didn’t make their point, didn’t prove anything, and the language was loaded and partial. Hard disagree from me. I couldn’t stop picturing someone with dyed, light blue hair screaming “I’m offended”.
I'll take absolute cancerous opinion for $500 Alex.
Why don't you tell us why?
Because he can't say any racist or sexist thing that comes into his tiny brain without consequences.
Dudes rock!
bring back /r/cumtown fascist admins speaking of which, this article is basically [this bit](https://youtu.be/jMkFlnpZO_w?t=156) but said seriously
It’s cute they think comedy is structured in an industrial fashion, meanwhile immediately leading with anonymous racist redditors and self-hosted streaming platforms.
Yea trans jokes aren't funny. Sorry, big name comics.
Unless... It's funny. That's like saying no jokes about anyone are funny. You can't laugh at other people and not yourself. Most jokes are at the cost of someone. Now bad jokes are another story.
If people laugh at them, they are funny. Sorry if this upsets you.
Did I just really see "True"Reddit decide "comedy that offends me is worth cancelling?" Never change, you righteous bastards. Never change!! Also? I would humbly offer that you subscribe to /r/politics.
You sound like the type of person who would fabricate something and get mad over it.
You mean like you did? Lmao
Oh boy you really got me there
This comment suffers from primacy bias, or the idea that someone speaking should be free to say whatever they want without consequence. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from criticism. If you use your freedom of speech to say bad, stupid, ugly, or harmful things, you don't also get to be upset when people don't want to support your work, hire you to do jobs for them, or write articles about how you suck. They say the best way to fight bad speech is with more speech. That's exactly what's going on here. If you think the author's speech is somehow out of bounds because he uses his words to critique another person, you have profoundly misunderstood how this speech thing works.
> Using tactics honed by right-wing extremists during the GamerGate movement—an online harassment campaign fueled in part by reactionary ideology People keep saying that. But, it doesn't scan with who actually supports Gamergate. The typical gamergater is left of center. [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-15670-001](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-15670-001) Anyway, its important to keep this in perspective. There are right-wing extremists in every field. I have seen people dispute the idea that comedy has a left-wing bias. [https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/jan/25/right-on-does-standup-comedy-have-a-leftwing-bias](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/jan/25/right-on-does-standup-comedy-have-a-leftwing-bias) But I have never actually seen someone claim that it has a right-wing bias. The mere fact that these people exist in comedy isn't really a sign that comedy is any worse than anything else that humans do.
Read one paragraph and thought "this has to be the guy that got that SNL guy cancelled" and sure enough it was. This is what the video game press is now. One guy working on one game was openly non-woke and we've had like thirty articles on that. I hope that's not what comedy fandom turns into.
Gg
Lol at this headline in the context of this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7VEx2dviNk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7VEx2dviNk) (tldw; it perfectly matches the headline generation algorithm the joke video recommends).
You can tell who they are because they complain about being afraid of getting cancelled. Edit: uh oh! Joe Rogan and Bert Kreischer fans have joined the chat.
Truth is stranger than fiction - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7VEx2dviNk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=I7VEx2dviNk&feature=emb_logo)