Society/Culture Is Comedy Dead?

[the_interloper]

Chapelle has drank too much of his own bathwater. Brilliant comedian in his prime, but just comes across as bitter and old now.

I've watched Killing Them Softly dozens of times. None of his new stuff comes close.

Rogan was talking about when they went to the recent Golovkin-Alvarez fight and they moved up to the good seats. Security questioned Chappelle about it and he said "I'm not going anywhere, I'm Dave Chappelle" which Rogan thought was hilarious, but yeah I thought it was being a dick tbh.

 

[Gethelred]

There's plenty of commercial value in comedy that "punches down". Lots of people love to laugh at themselves.

Chappelle makes jokes about black people that could be seen as punching down, yet nobody cares including black people in the audience.

One of the reasons Chappelle provides for leaving the industry after the Dave Chappelle show is that he felt like people were laughing at him rather than with him.

There's a tradition of minstrelsy in America, of black people's traditional roles in comedy being to being laughed at. It's not all that hard to read between the lines of what he was saying at the time that he was a bit sick of performing to predominantly white audiences and have them laugh at the steriotype - the surface layer of his performance - and not get the satire below.

White comedians make jokes using racial stereotypes that could be seen as punching down, and you see black people laughing in the crowd.

I dont see what all the fuss is about tbh. Nothing should be off limits in comedy.

I think the problem isn't that you can laugh at racist caricature or steriotype, more that it's not very brave or non-conformist to do so.

Having a crack at those who can't punch you back to the hilarity of the powerful makes you a bit of a bully rather than a comic. Bullies can be funny, but that doesn't really prevent them from being bullies.

 

[Evolved1]

One of the reasons Chappelle provides for leaving the industry after the Dave Chappelle show is that he felt like people were laughing at him rather than with him.

There's a tradition of minstrelsy in America, of black people's traditional roles in comedy being to being laughed at. It's not all that hard to read between the lines of what he was saying at the time that he was a bit sick of performing to predominantly white audiences and have them laugh at the steriotype - the surface layer of his performance - and not get the satire below.

I think the problem isn't that you can laugh at racist caricature or steriotype, more that it's not very brave or non-conformist to do so.

Having a crack at those who can't punch you back to the hilarity of the powerful makes you a bit of a bully rather than a comic. Bullies can be funny, but that doesn't really prevent them from being bullies.

Comedians who make a play on offensive stereotypes and caricatures are widely known for for doing so. It's part of the tools of their trade, their art. Art is highly subjective and not all art is to everyones taste. The audience who watch these shows understand what they're exposing themselves to. By and large, they enjoy being roasted even if it's for belonging to minority groups.

I personally don't find any of it offensive given it's done without malice. The more offensive the comedian tries to be, the better.

As for bullying, I really don't see it. The audience pays to be there. They aren't a captive audience.

Think of the times a mate has had a crack at your expense and you found it funny. It's the same deal to me. Purely by feel, I'd say white people are the brunt of jokes just as much as black people. I don't see a lot of jokes about heterosexuals and cisgender people, but they're kinda boring anyway.

Look at the crowds who attend shows of controversial comedians. They're very diverse. It's not like they're attracting the same type of person who frequents Nazi or MAGA rallies.

 

[Kram]

Richards isn't even doing any jokes or comedy, it's just random racist ranting because he's angry at a couple of blokes talking though his act and heckling.

Anyone apart from dumb racists would understand this.

 

[Evolved1]

Richards isn't even doing any jokes or comedy, it's just random racist ranting because he's angry at a couple of blokes talking though his act and heckling.

Anyone apart from dumb racists would understand this.

That's one hell of a meltdown.

 

[Gethelred]

Comedians who make a play on offensive stereotypes and caricatures are widely known for for doing so. It's part of the tools of their trade, their art. Art is highly subjective and not all art is to everyones taste. The audience who watch these shows understand what they're exposing themselves to. By and large, they enjoy being roasted even if it's for belonging to minority groups.

I personally don't find any of it offensive given it's done without malice. The more offensive the comedian tries to be, the better.

But that's a luxury you have and others might not possess. It's an example of your privileges effects on you.

Chappelle's comedy relies on going through offense to satire; you laugh at the shock value, before laughing at the permutations of the purported viewpoint. In order to make comedy like this, you need to have an excellent knowledge of the subject matter; you need to both be excellent at offending people, but you also need to know why they're offended. You need to let them in on the joke, to see why it's funny. This is also why Chappelle took issue with people laughing at him; they're laughing at the shock and not moving beyond the steriotype.

One laughs at A Modest Proposal not because the prospect of eating the poor is funny - though it is - but because of how much it nails the mindset of the upper classes. The issue with Chappelle's trans stuff is that he's asking people to laugh at the idea of eating the poor; he's missing that second step.

As for bullying, I really don't see it. The audience pays to be there. They aren't a captive audience.

But that's kind of the reason why you can't ignore the backlash. People are complaining for a reason; you mightn't see the same thing they do, but others can.

Think of the times a mate has had a crack at your expense and you found it funny. It's the same deal to me. Purely by feel, I'd say white people are the brunt of jokes just as much as black people. I don't see a lot of jokes about heterosexuals and cisgender people, but they're kinda boring anyway.

You're comparing a joke between someone who knows you well to a comedian who knows a single trans person joking about the entire trans community to a non-trans audience. Do you think this is an apples to apples comparison?

Look at the crowds who attend shows of controversial comedians. They're very diverse. It's not like they're attracting the same type of person who frequents Nazi or MAGA rallies.

Relevance?

 

[Carringbush2010]

As for bullying, I really don't see it. The audience pays to be there. They aren't a captive audience.

That depends on the audience, the entire audience is not just at the venue. There are others who stream it, and probably have a pretty good idea of the type of content, and of course there may others that might not.

So, I guess we circle back to 'don't tune in / attend if you don't want to' - if you know you're going to take offence and then watch it, and then complain.

Is that the theory of 'looking for offence'? The famous catchphrase. lol.

And then there is this , so does it come back to a question of numbers or noise? And how do we know whether it's numbers or noise? I'm going to fairly speculate that the backlash is more noise.

But that's kind of the reason why you can't ignore the backlash. People are complaining for a reason; you mightn't see the same thing they do, but others can.

 

[Gethelred]

And then there is this, so does it come back to a question of numbers or noise? And how do we know whether it's numbers or noise? I'm going to fairly speculate that the backlash is more noise.

You can have popular bullies and unpopular bullies. Popularity or its lack doesn't change the nature of behaviour.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You can have popular bullies and unpopular bullies. Popularity or its lack doesn't change the nature of behaviour.

Not sure what your point is Gethy.

Could you please detail a little bit more what you're pointing out?

 

[Gethelred]

Not sure what your point is Gethy.

Could you please detail a little bit more what you're pointing out?

You said this:

And then there is this , so does it come back to a question of numbers or noise? And how do we know whether it's numbers or noise? I'm going to fairly speculate that the backlash is more noise.

... which stated that the question is numbers - ie, popularity - or noise; how loud a minority might be.

My point is that neither are really relevant to whether or not you're behaving like a bully. You can have extremely popular bullies and extremely unpopular ones, but that they're popular does not stop the person being a bully. Their popularity does not change how they're behaving.

 

[JackOutback]

Richards isn't even doing any jokes or comedy, it's just random racist ranting because he's angry at a couple of blokes talking though his act and heckling.

Anyone apart from dumb racists would understand this.

I don’t really rate the second half of The Closer as comedy either. There’s no jokes, it’s not funny. It’s just Chapelle using his larger platform to point score against a community that he thinks had targeted him unfairly, despite the fact he’s happy to target them and pass it off as having a wheeze.

I love Chapelle a lot of the time but his trans response is just thin-skinned bullying at this point.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You said this:

... which stated that the question is numbers - ie, popularity - or noise; how loud a minority might be.

My point is that neither are really relevant to whether or not you're behaving like a bully. You can have extremely popular bullies and extremely unpopular ones, but that they're popular does not stop the person being a bully. Their popularity does not change how they're behaving.

Yeah, I had a thought that this might be where you were going.

Just remember, not everyone, in fact it's likely that most (if not all) of audiences like Chapelle's wouldn't deem it as bullying.

Again, majority always rules. Of course, the popularity or unpopularity is always relevant.

So, again we circle round to if you know you're not gonna like it and will find it 'bullying' then the suggestion would be to avoid it.

 

[Gethelred]

Yeah, I had a thought that this might be where you were going.

Just remember, not everyone, in fact it's likely that most (if not all) of audiences like Chapelle's wouldn't deem it as bullying.

An awful lot of people like being entertained more than they do doing the right thing.

Again, majority always rules. Of course, the popularity or unpopularity is always relevant.

You are about the least convincing utilitarian I've ever seen, CB.

So, again we circle round to if you know you're not gonna like it and will find it 'bullying' then the suggestion would be to avoid it.

I rather think you're missing the point, but that isn't really all that much of a surprise.

 

[Carringbush2010]

An awful lot of people like being entertained more than they do doing the right thing.

You are about the least convincing utilitarian I've ever seen, CB.

I rather think you're missing the point, but that isn't really all that much of a surprise.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself.

I'm going to assume that in your mind you might think that most people as in the majority find Chapelle's behaviour comedy bullying rather than comedy. Given you believe the 'popularity' or lack of is not relevant (when really that's how to gauge if something is relevant, Chapelle a case in point). As in is it acceptable to the person on the street.

If that is your implication, I'd like some evidence, but of course I'm not going to ask for that because it would be impossible to find conclusive evidence for that. However, it'd be a very long bow to draw to believe with any certainty that Chapelle and others similar in character are so far off the nose to the person in the street.

So no, I'm not missing the point at all

 

[Gethelred]

Maybe I'm not explaining myself.

I'm going to assume that in your mind you might think that most people as in the majority find Chapelle's behaviour comedy bullying rather than comedy. Given you believe the 'popularity' or lack of is not relevant (when really that's how to gauge if something is relevant, Chapelle a case in point). As in is it acceptable to the person on the street.

This is part of why I find you quite singularly irritating to argue with.

I've said, from the outset, that I genuinely do not care what the mob thinks. A spade is a spade is a spade. I do not care particularly whether everyone thinks the Emperor's new clothes are dazzling, he's not got any pants on.

I think the parts of his set that discuss trans people are bullying because he's not sufficiently aware of trans people's lives or issues to do what he does with race and pass through insult to satire. I've said this several times now. The idea that a multitude disagrees with me is immaterial to how or why I think this; their disagreement does not address the reasoning of why I think it.

This is what I meant when I said you've missed the point, because the entire rest of this post is a rebuttal to a point I didn't make.

If that is your implication, I'd like some evidence, but of course I'm not going to ask for that because it would be impossible to find conclusive evidence for that. However, it'd be a very long bow to draw to believe with any certainty that Chapelle and others similar in character are so far off the nose to the person in the street.

So no, I'm not missing the point at all

See above.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I've said, from the outset, that I genuinely do not care what the mob thinks.

A spade is a spade is a spade. I do not care particularly whether everyone thinks the Emperor's new clothes are dazzling, he's not got any pants on.

I think the parts of his set that discuss trans people are bullying because he's not sufficiently aware of trans people's lives or issues to do what he does with race and pass through insult to satire. I've said this several times now. The idea that a multitude disagrees with me is immaterial to how or why I think this; their disagreement does not address the reasoning of why I think it.

In a nutshell, you're basically saying you disagree with what is seemingly your concession, the majority.

Ok mate, then you do you. If you wanna bark at me then I'd ask you bark at that multitude as well, lotta barking.

This is part of why I find you quite singularly irritating to argue with.

I could say the same, you've basically conceded the masses aren't up in arms about Chapelle and his 'behaviour' 'comedy' - however one wants to interpret. They're just 'that's funny but could be offensive...... meh'

I explain what you already know, and you think I'm irritating to argue with. Like I'm the stubborn bad guy. This is bordering on offensive

I'm not your problem, blunt reality is your problem.

I apologies for my original reply to you, should've known better.

We're done.

 

[Gethelred]

In a nutshell, you're basically saying you disagree with what is seemingly your concession, the majority.

Ok mate, then you do you. If you wanna bark at me then I'd ask you bark at that multitude as well, lotta barking.

I could say the same, you've basically conceded the masses aren't up in arms about Chapelle and his 'behaviour' 'comedy' - however one wants to interpret. They're just 'that's funny but could be offensive...... meh'

You cannot concede something you never used as an argument in the first place.

You raise missing the point to an artform.

I explain what you already know, and you think I'm irritating to argue with. Like I'm the stubborn bad guy. This is bordering on offensive

I'm not your problem, blunt reality is your problem.

Nope. You are most definitely my problem, because you seemingly evade bits of the conversation as though magnetically repelled. Some part of your psyche rejects it.

It's genuinely not reality. It's not even reality as you see it. We're not even discussing reality. You missed the point, and now you're offended.

I apologies for my original reply to you, should've known better.

We're done.

Yes, we are.

 

[JackOutback]

Might has never meant right. The majority used to find minstrel acts entertaining, that doesn’t mean they were acceptable.

 

[Evolved1]

This is part of why I find you quite singularly irritating to argue with.

I've said, from the outset, that I genuinely do not care what the mob thinks. A spade is a spade is a spade. I do not care particularly whether everyone thinks the Emperor's new clothes are dazzling, he's not got any pants on.

I think the parts of his set that discuss trans people are bullying because he's not sufficiently aware of trans people's lives or issues to do what he does with race and pass through insult to satire. I've said this several times now. The idea that a multitude disagrees with me is immaterial to how or why I think this; their disagreement does not address the reasoning of why I think it.

This is what I meant when I said you've missed the point, because the entire rest of this post is a rebuttal to a point I didn't make.

See above.

I see little value in posting to your earlier reply as we'll only go round in circles.

The bolded point is a different train of thought though. I'll re-watch the closer with an open mind.

 

[Evolved1]

Gethelred

Chappelle gave some ignorant takes about trans people, and others that are standard TERF viewpoints (which I don't view as being incorrect).

I'll sit on the fence somewhat. He could have done better by educating himself about the trans community, but I don't see any bullying.

No minority group in my lifetime has ever sought the same level of protection as trans people. Comedy makes fun of you whether you're black, white, yellow, red, male, female, American, Indian, Asian, African, Christian, Muslim, or disabled, yet we need to put a stop at trans jokes to protect one community.

The trans community should stop being so precious.

 

[Gethelred]

No minority group in my lifetime has ever sought the same level of protection as trans people.

Is it that they've sought more/higher levels of protection, or that there's more methods of communicating that means you're seeing more activism?

If we had Twitter in the 60's/70's, I'd imagine that both second wave feminism and the civil rights movements would both have used it to try and get their views out there. What I question - if we're going there - is whether twitter activism is better or worse for the mooted causes; sure it gets the message out to a much wider reach of people, but the word limit and reach means that the version of the message isn't the best possible version of that message.

The first person to refuse to surrender her seat on a bus in America was Claudette Colvin, a 15 year old who was pregnant at the time. Rosa Parks was considered by some within the movement to be a better candidate to spread outrage, as she had straighter hair, paler skin, and wasn't pregnant.

History records both women's contributions, but only in retrospect.

 

[Val Keating]

Chris Rock is going to do the
first ever live special on Netflix. Not sure what time it’ll be on in Australia, but man thats a ballsy move by both Rock and Netflix. The word is that hes back to his best, and does about 2 minutes where he completely takes apart Will Smith. Can’t wait.

Such a great time for stand up.

 

[the_interloper]

Chris Rock is going to do the
first ever live special on Netflix. Not sure what time it’ll be on in Australia, but man thats a ballsy move by both Rock and Netflix. The word is that hes back to his best, and does about 2 minutes where he completely takes apart Will Smith. Can’t wait.

Such a great time for stand up.

That's an interesting idea, i'll definitely check that out

 

[Val Keating]

That's an interesting idea, i'll definitely check that out

I’ll watch it for sure but I won’t be setting the alarm if it’s on in the middle of the night over here.

I hope they get a good crowd with no hecklers. Some comics like to do about 3 recordings because it takes the pressure off and they don’t have to worry about dickheads ruining it.

 

[the_interloper]

I’ll watch it for sure but I won’t be setting the alarm if it’s on in the middle of the night over here.

I hope they get a good crowd with no hecklers. Some comics like to do about 3 recordings because it takes the pressure off and they don’t have to worry about dickheads ruining it.

Fair enough, though I saw Will Anderson this year and the only funny bit was him hanging shit on the Scottish heckler, can work for some I guess.