How about people lately getting cancelled for "damn, he missed" jokes?

How about people lately getting cancelled for "damn, he missed" jokes?
It's an obvious joke to make, half of people (even more so of us outside US) are thinking it - but 99%, I'd like to think, as a joke, most people don't actually want Trump killed.
Does it make a difference whether a common person or a professional comedian says it? With a professional, it's even more clearly a joke. But if we draw a line there, where is it; isn't a streamer/youtuber a professional comedian?

And there's a good argument why this joke shouldn't be made. Among millions of people, it only takes few, at worst even one, who doesn't think it's a joke, one who takes it as agreement and encouragement to take another shot (pun intended).

I personally think people are being treated far too roughly for saying out loud (or more often typing) what so many of us were thinking. But I also think you shouldn't say it, much less post online.

Throw my chip in the hat for people who hate how comedy is corporate/culturally nanny-stated by a few overly sensitive or dogmatic cultists who don’t understand jokes. I don’t think those boundaries should exist.

I didn’t intend to get onto a rant, but:

And, this may be a bit of an anecdotal observation mixed with conjecture (I’ll admit this), but I’d guess the biggest overlap between people wanting limits on comedy/comedians will be with the former Bernie Buster types on the left, and the current Trumpists and Evangelicals/theocrats on the right (in Western countries). There is something about the dogmatic mind that blurs the line of entertainment and reality for these groups. Perhaps they see entertainment as a political tool that can either serve or opposes dogma - like a form of propaganda - I see this mainly from the right who lose their shit whenever South Park ridicules Trump or rednecks - it’s to the point where they make the false claim “South Park used to make fun everyone, now it’s just people like me!” After a few jokes across 1 or 2 episodes.

And I’m not saying that everyone who doesn’t see the clear boundary between the world of entertainment and reality is necessarily dogmatically minded, just that dogmatic people are the majority. And it makes sense, as a feature of that dogmatic lens is the blurring of lines that most people can see - so they end up seeing the role of entertainment as either in service or opposing their belief system - ignoring the 99% of it is not about them, or interpreting it in a way that makes it about them. Dogmatically minded people have a blurred lens on reality - for example: those people who see everything as “woke” - they seem crazy to most, but in their dogmatic culture, this is their reality. Satire is probably the most maligned form because it often reflects the worst views of society - and this goes back to classical Greece (at least) until shows like South Park today.

Here’s a joke by Jimmy Carr:

”They say there’s safety in numbers… tell that to 6 million Jews.”

There will be those who consider this anti-Semitic, even though there’s nothing anti-Jewish or pro-Nazi about it. Part of the weight of the joke is that it’s about the Holocaust, the worst thing to happen in Modern Western civilization, something that many people consider “not something you should joke about”. But it’s over that line where many best comedians draw material from. Because safe humour is generally expected, and rarely funny. Unsafe humour has that extra jolt.

Jimmy Carr does clean jokes too: “I had a conversation with a West African girl in her native tongue for hours… we just clicked.”

But I don’t think that means that because clean jokes are possible, then we should stick with those and put boundaries on those that might offend people, or to satisfy those dogmatically minded people who perceive jokes on “sacred” topics to be dangerous and brainwashing. Similarly, just because we can make non-violent or non-sexual video games and films doesn’t mean the violent and sexualized video games and films shouldn’t exist too. If such boundaries of what is permitted existed, one of my favourite filmmakers of all time, Paul Verhoeven, would never have been great (or great IMO, I’m sure MANY disagree 😀).

fair point, but again - I leave it up to the market to decide. Money talks, bs walks. Etc (and look at the waning popularity of Disney and Hollywood lately. Tells me something). I certainly wouldn't support quelling the voices of writers/actors/directors or whoever else, or shutting down or "punishing" Hollywood, Disney, or whatever other mainstream form of entertainment b/c they lean heavily on agendas I don't often agree with or I think are overdone. Like some seem to be at least indirectly advocating for when it comes to certain comiedians/comedy. I simply don't watch (or rarely do at least). This was a simple concept that the left, funny enough, used to be the biggest advocates of.

I'm fine with (actually great with) certain artists/entertainers losing popularity if they continue peddling messages that are negative/poor/toxic, etc. but it should be organic.