Should comedians have boundaries?

[DarthMetalliCube]

Runa216 said:

DarthMetalliCube said:

Lol no, ABSOLUTELY not. Short of actually breaking the law - doxxing someone, threatening physical violence, etc. what would this theoretical punishment for these "boundaries" even entail? Arrest them? Stripping them of their wealth and ruining their lives? For merely expressing themselves via art/entertainment? That's an extremely dubious slippery slope of Fascism that frankly I fear far more than any super edgy comedian. It's a sad state of affairs when comedy has become a virtually dangerous art form to get into these days, as doing so could threaten the very livelihood of these artists if they "step over the line". It's a mark of how Authoritarian the Western world has fallen to in the last decade or so.. It's so Medieval and backwards.

Of course it's well within the rights of people to crap on comedians for cheap shots too (especially when they're completely unfunny, shock-laugh type stuff that's used as a cheap way to get attention, like that Kramer dude or whatever). But even so, the comedians have a right to do so, certainly in America where we still value free speech. Let the market sort it out. If a comedian sucks or is using content that's totally inappropriate with no redeeming qualities in funny, thought-provoking material, they very likely won't be popular anyway. 

In fact, I'd go out on a limb and claim that most good comedy SHOULD be (and thrives on being) offensive, anti-establishment, or at least provocative. Most of the best comedians IMO: George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Bill Burr, Dave Chappelle, Ricky Gervais, Chris Rock, Sarah Silverman, are largely as funny and interesting/dynamic as they are BECAUSE they push boundaries and aren't afraid to offend. Comedy is often funny by reminding people and forcing them to confront and share in some uncomfortable truths (conveyed in a hyperbolic and/or goofy manner of course). Shine a light on the fact that the "emperor has no clothes". Force us to laugh at ourselves, even in a crude fashion. Etc..

That said, I don't think EVERY comedian should necessarily be this way. I'm also a big fan of a handful of more surface level, "turn off your brain", inoffensive comics like Steven Wright, Zack Galifianakis, Whitney Cummings, Sebastian Maniscalco, Mitch Hedberg, etc.. Like any art form - those looking to avoid the offensive, deep, or uncomfortable stuff and simply want to escape and chill have plenty of options with comedians/comedy as well. Like the old (and mostly defunct) left used to say when I was growing up, "If you don't like it, change the dial". Variety is the spice of life.

Someone didn't read most of the posts in the thread. Which...fair. IT's a few pages and it's a fair assumption that there's a lot of repetition. 

That said, "Comedy" Has no boundaries and shouldn't, if it's actually comedy and not just thinly-veiled shit take political beliefs masquerading as comedy as an excuse to punch down against marginalized groups. 

Comedy shouldn't have boundaries, but it has to be comedy and not just prejudice masquerading as comedy. 

Not sure where you got that impression. I did indeed read each reply, in fact multiple times over - as I'm extremely passionate and opinionated about this sort of things. What I was referring to was the Western power structure and mainstream in general, not in this thread, which I'm glad to see the vast majority does see reason. 

I can't help but feel that that statement is a contradiction. What if a comedian's material is viewed by some as prejudiced rhetoric? Is it no longer allowed? Who decides this? What specifically is the line here? What's the punishment and how is it determined? Does this off-limits rhetoric apply to every group or only certain designated groups?

Material that comes off as prejudice should absolutely be allowed. Of course it should have some sort of redeeming quality like being actually funny or thought-provoking, satirical (Borat or South Park, for instance), but these sorts of things are totally subjective. Again, it's a slippery slope. That's why at the end of the day it ALL needs to be permitted, short of actually breaking the law (threatening physical violence, doxxing, harrasment, etc). The blatantly talentless, predjudice people using comedy as a shield or whatever - they're not going to gain any sort of real popularity anyway, so I fail to see what the issue is.

the-pi-guy said:

KLXVER said:

I dont really get the punching down bit. So are you saying Dave Chappelle is above trans people, so he shouldnt make jokes about them? or is it that he is famous and trans people are not, so he can only joke about people who are more or just as famous as him? 

Never really understood the punching down thing.

The problem isn't Dave Chappelle making fun of people less famous than him. 

The problem isn't "Dave Chappelle is above trans people".

He's a rich man hurting people for their struggles that he doesn't deal with or sympathize with. That's punching down.

If Bill Gates talked about how he liked to invite poor people to his house, so he can eat in front of them, while they starve. That's punching down.

Someone making fun of a 6 year old who has cancer and is going to die soon. That's punching down. 

But to me at least, the term "punching down" is a bad and misguided one for two main reasons. For one, it essentially implies violence or at least a slight, when comedy is meant to be harmless art/entertainment, or even a catharsis - often ironically towards those targeted. Many use comedy to cope. Second, that these so-called targets are considered "down" by way of being weaker, less-than, or hold less power is patronizing. Even if there may be a bit of truth to that in certain areas, I find it somewhat condescending if anything.

If a certain group is told they cannot even handle jokes or jokes would harm them further - how can they expect to feel any sort of power or resilience elsewhere? I can only speak from the perspective of a bisexual dude, not a trans person, but I feel like were it me, I'd be far more offended if people acted like I needed to be protected by mere words (especially in the context of an art or entertainment form) because of some preceived lack of power or vulnerability/sensitivity. 

Of course, context is everything, and there are definitely times when I feel like some material comes off more like immature, lazy pot shots vs actual comedy (from Chappelle specifically but this applies to others as well), but again, these things are largely subjective. Where do you draw the line? And where does it end?

People are certainly within their rights to fling their barrage of criticism or hatred toward Chappelle, I even understand that to a degree. What I DO NOT support is Chappelle being blackballed or his livelihood threatened (or in some cases even being physically threatened) simply because he makes jokes that some people find distasteful. To me that is NOT ok in what's supposed to be a free and civilized society. 

Last edited by DarthMetalliCube - on 30 April 2024