Should comedians have boundaries?

[Jumpin]

the-pi-guy said:

Jumpin said:

Yes, because I understand the difference between a joke and reality. And I don't think we should make compromises for young children and those who suffer from credulity and the inability to separate entertainment from reality.

"it's funny because it's true"

Pretty much all of comedy works because the joke is applicable to how people understand reality. 

You talk about liking outrage comedy. Outrage comedy only works because of reality. You can't make outrage comedy about blorgflobs, because that's meaningless.  

You have to poke fun at people's real insecurities or real life challenges.  

Jumpin said:

Do you actually agree with the radical feminists who wanted to ban the Bret Easton Ellis dark comedy novel American Psycho?
Or do you agree with the radical feminists who wrote and directed a film adaptation of the Bret Easton Ellis dark comedy novel American Psycho?

If you were bothering to understand my perspective, instead of getting worked up, you'd understand that I'm not in favor of banning anything. 

Just because I disagree with you, doesn’t mean I’m worked up. I’m genuinely confused on your position of conflating comedy with reality and propaganda. If you’re not in favour of banning anything, why do you repeatedly support arguments to give boundaries to comedians? How would you have that enforced if not banning? What outcome do you hope to achieve if you’re not supporting the point that comedians should have boundaries?

I’m other words, if you’re in support of the radical feminists who adapted American Psycho, why do you support the arguments of those who wanted to ban it?

If all comedy works because it’s applicable to reality, then your point isn’t relevant. When Jimmy Carr makes a bunch of pedophile jokes and then points out the warning on viagra “keep away from children” - we can point out the basis in reality, but we can also point out that it’s comedy, and normal functioning people can easily separate it from reality.