By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Should comedians have boundaries?

 

Should comedians have boundaries?

Yes 12 19.67%
 
No 49 80.33%
 
Total:61
Doctor_MG said:

Let's say a comedian is spreading thinly veiled hate speech. What would you suggest be done?

JuliusHackebeil said:

But who is to decide what is a joke and what is thinly veiled hate speech? If you give that freedom to the government, they will decide for you. And you are bound to hate one of their decisions eventually.

HoloDust said:

“Take away the right to say ‘fuck’ and you take away the right to say ‘fuck the government.” 

- Lenny Bruce

I've literally said 0 things about the government. 

I'm just talking about an idealized standard. 

In practice, this is currently handled by the market. People decide which comedians they want to go to. Companies decide whether they want to support a comedian. Whether that company is one of the broadcast networks or a private bar. That is their right. Can't force companies to give money to comedians they don't want to support. Can't force people to go to a comedy act they don't want to support. 



Around the Network
Renamed said:
shavenferret said:

Jokes may make sensitive snowflakes burn in anger. But you're wanting to normalize and even go farther than that, to institutionalize this sensitivity to words. It would make the United States a pathetic society. We won this from the British when we decided that we wouldn't take it anymore. We didn't whine or cry, we got our guns and took the nation rightfully. But the snowflakes won't win. Most of the people here have disagreed with you, and in my humble opinion, sanity and reason has prevailed. 

Not too familiar with our own history are you.  We whined for a ton of stuff long before guns got involved.  

Guess you forgot the night we dressed up as Native Americans and dumped tea into the Boston harbor.

The Boston Tea Party is a horrible example because it's hardly any sort of weakness of spirit (which is the source or reason of whining in the first place) and doesn't really fit because they risked their lives or  prison time if caught.  



shavenferret said:
Renamed said:

Not too familiar with our own history are you.  We whined for a ton of stuff long before guns got involved.  

Guess you forgot the night we dressed up as Native Americans and dumped tea into the Boston harbor.

The Boston Tea Party is a horrible example because it's hardly any sort of weakness of spirit (which is the source or reason of whining in the first place) and doesn't really fit because they risked their lives or  prison time if caught.  

Did you forget the part where they attempted to blame another group for their actions?  And they did it in the cover of night.  Yeah, that's extremely weak of spirit and an attempt to reduce the risk.

Strength of spirit is owning your action and/or standing up to take blame.  While fictional in source, does the phrase, "I am Spartacus" ring a bell? 



Renamed said:
shavenferret said:

The Boston Tea Party is a horrible example because it's hardly any sort of weakness of spirit (which is the source or reason of whining in the first place) and doesn't really fit because they risked their lives or  prison time if caught.  

Did you forget the part where they attempted to blame another group for their actions?  And they did it in the cover of night.  Yeah, that's extremely weak of spirit and an attempt to reduce the risk.

Strength of spirit is owning your action and/or standing up to take blame.  While fictional in source, does the phrase, "I am Spartacus" ring a bell? 

Edited

Last edited by shavenferret - on 02 May 2024

shavenferret said:

You must be a communist that hates America.  Look, go eat some apple pie and watch baseball, you'll set yourself right soon enough.

If this is the level of discourse we can expect from you, you won't last long here, lol.



Around the Network
OneTime said:

While I 100% agree with Freedom of Speech, over the years I have come to think that good comedians are family friendly.

If you are funny, you are funny. If you need to put swear words in, or use "shock tactics"... well... that's usually because you're not very good.

That's the same with a lot of stuff actually: in films you get excessive violence, excessive action scenes, something that gets called "gritty and realistic", excessive romance, jump scares, and so on. They do it because they aren't good at writing a plot, so they put a 10 minute car chase in.

So, Jimmy Carr, Chris Rock, and Ricky Gervais are all terrible comedians; and the Goodfellas, Godfather, and Perfect Blue writers aren't any good at plot.

On a side note of gritty realism, my favourite pornography films all use the word "fuck", contain excessive romance, and jump scares.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

the-pi-guy said:

I've literally said 0 things about the government. 

I'm just talking about an idealized standard. 

In practice, this is currently handled by the market. People decide which comedians they want to go to. Companies decide whether they want to support a comedian. Whether that company is one of the broadcast networks or a private bar. That is their right. Can't force companies to give money to comedians they don't want to support. Can't force people to go to a comedy act they don't want to support. 

Now I know you haven't said anything about the government. But I'm asking you a direct question. Do you think the government should? If so, how? If not, what should we do about this proposed thinly veiled hate speech? 

I'm not asking about how it's currently handled or the idealized standard. I'm asking you what you think should be done. Because that's kind of the topic of this whole thread. 



the-pi-guy said:
shavenferret said:

Jokes may make sensitive snowflakes burn in anger. But you're wanting to normalize and even go farther than that, to institutionalize this sensitivity to words. It would make the United States a pathetic society. We won this from the British when we decided that we wouldn't take it anymore. We didn't whine or cry, we got our guns and took the nation rightfully. But the snowflakes won't win. Most of the people here have disagreed with you, and in my humble opinion, sanity and reason has prevailed. 

Conservatives sure do love their fan fiction. 

Tell us about the one where the imaginary lib got red in the face when someone said Merry Christmas to him! 

Jumpin said:

Jimmy Carr has plenty of jokes about the Holocaust.

Jojo Rabbit is filled with anti-Semitic jokes.

A ban on Holocaust humour would be a ban on that comedian and that film. Jimmy Carr was attacked (cancelled, if you will) by a horde of angry righteous crusaders. A comedian who leans dark and satirical and the joke was on a special called “His dark material” which came out in late 2021 - but the cancel-mob didn’t get around to clipping and cancelling him for several months afterwards.

Tell me, what harm did his Holocaust joke do? Or any of his Holocaust jokes do?

Anyway, Jimmy Carr has a response for the next time he gets cancelled:

You've completely misunderstood what I'm saying. 

Comedians can make jokes about the Holocaust, about gay people, about trans people, about black people, etc. 

I have even posted a bit about black churches in this very thread. The key is, are they actually telling jokes, or are they spreading thinly veiled hate speech. 

My apologies, seems we're in two different conversations.

EDIT: actually, I take that back. You’re attempting to deflect the conversation. After reading other posts of yours, you are clearly targeting comedy and comedians and proposing that the subjects they joke about convey dangerous political ideas. We’re having the same conversation and I think you’re wrong. Thus my above criticisms stand.

I don’t think any comedian should be limited on any subject. The more deplorable and offensive people find them, the better. That’s what makes me laugh, and claiming I’m being led to become racist, anti-Semitic, sexist, prejudiced in any way, is a ludicrous idea. Offensive comedy is great comedy. Observe:

Is the excessive stereotypes making anyone more homophobic? more racist? or are you neither of those things and laughing like I am?

I suppose there's a "What the hell? This is garbage." option too :D

Last edited by Jumpin - on 03 May 2024

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Doctor_MG said:

Now I know you haven't said anything about the government. But I'm asking you a direct question. Do you think the government should? If so, how? If not, what should we do about this proposed thinly veiled hate speech? 

I'm not asking about how it's currently handled or the idealized standard. I'm asking you what you think should be done. Because that's kind of the topic of this whole thread. 

In this particular instance, I am fine with the free market approach. I think it's been reasonably effective.



Chrkeller said:
TheLegendaryBigBoss said:

No, jokes are harmless imo.

This.  Hurt feelings isn't a serious issue. 

Nothing in this world exists outside of context. Jokes, if they normalize bigotry, can absolutely be damaging. That's why it's so important to distinguish between actual comedy and bigotry masquerading as comedy. 

Do you think it would be appropriate if I told some joke that included a bunch of hard Rs or called people retards or made light of gay people in a way that insinuated they were all pedos or groomers? Because people make those jokes and it's treated in some communities like it's normal, like it's acceptable, like queer folk are deviants, where the 'joke' lies in how absurd it is that these people are allowed to exist in the spaces of others. 

People absolutely make jokes that are harmful. And if they're offensive, they need to be equally poignant or at least equally funny. If it's just an excuse to treat it as a valve to release and speak racism or sexism that you can't share openly...then it's damaging. 

Nothing exists in a vacuum. Without context sure, 'jokes' shouldn't have limits. but we don't live in a world where that's possible. We have centuries of historical context that paint those jokes in a certain light. 

IT's like these people who like to pretend we 'fixed' racism because OF the civil rights movement. And 'fixed' sexism because of suffrage. Like, on the books black people and women are legally people but that doesn't erase decades - nay, centuries - of history wherein that was NOT the case. You can't just flip a switch and then shoot finger guns at someone and say 'we good'. History is a factor. That's true in life and in comedy. So while devoid of context comedy has no bounds, GOOD comedy absolutely does and GOOD comedians understand the difference between just shouting obscenities and bigotry vs making offensive material with a point behind it. 

I genuinely don't trust anyone who prefers to strip any situation of its context, nuance, and depth. IT reeks of someone who either doesn't understand the circumstances surrounding the topics they discuss or they don't care and just want to stop hearing about it. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android