The problem is who holds the power to decide what can and cannot be said. Because whomever holds that power has a ton of influence and control. Just not a good idea.
i7-13700k |
Vengeance 32 gb |
RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC |
Switch OLED
Should comedians have boundaries? | |||
Yes | 13 | 20.63% | |
No | 50 | 79.37% | |
Total: | 63 |
The problem is who holds the power to decide what can and cannot be said. Because whomever holds that power has a ton of influence and control. Just not a good idea.
i7-13700k |
Vengeance 32 gb |
RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC |
Switch OLED
CourageTCD said: Yeah, I know that |
Threats are already illegal. Nothing needs to change there. Jokes about marginalized groups are not intrinsically threats unless it's suggestive of an actual threatening action. So I'm just kind of confused as to what you're suggesting.
Everybody knows ISIS started as a comedy improv. Inflation would be lower if comedians finally got to it the right way. And people are killed every day in Israel, Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan etc. by insensitive jokes. Why can't stand-ups stop cutting wood unsustainably? And finaly: the basis of good mental health for any well adjusted person is a comedians take on them. So we should really hold them to a higher standard.
I think I should be the one deciding on what hate speech is. -Then our world would be a much better place.
Doctor_MG said:
Threats are already illegal. Nothing needs to change there. Jokes about marginalized groups are not intrinsically threats unless it's suggestive of an actual threatening action. So I'm just kind of confused as to what you're suggesting. |
Well, a comedian can try to get away with his threatning speech by saying "it was just a joke", but that was just one example. I have been saying is that the boundary must be the law, so you can include anything that attempt to break a law desguised as a joke.
CourageTCD said: Well, a comedian can try to get away with his threatning speech by saying "it was just a joke", but that was just one example. I have been saying is that the boundary must be the law, so you can include anything that attempt to break a law desguised as a joke. |
I think this just goes without saying though. I don't think anyone here is saying that comedians are above the law.
shavenferret said: 1. Should this boundary be a legal, or personal moral one? 2. Who would implement this? 3. And what if a historically marinated group is currently causing a lot of problems and needs to be made fun of? I didn't mention this in my last post but a big purpose of comedy is to help society deal with issues and help it figure out who is right or at fault. It does this by reflectively poking fun at a situation or making fun of an offending party. However, any kind of hard boundaries would destroy this, and hurt comedy's ability to give us a nuanced perspective on life. Just some thoughts, sir. You had some good points, but not sure if you thought broadly on all of that. |
1. Moral, of course.
2. The comedian.
3. It depends on how historical do you mean. 5 years ago or 500 years ago? It also helps if you parse your joke in that history.
KLXVER said: 1. So what people are shit on by society in large? I think thats just opinions at this point. You might think one group is being shit on alot and another might think a different group is being shit on. And so comedians cant joke about anyone. 2. I mean who would be in charge of who comedians cant joke about? |
1. Data and statistics can delineate the shitters from the shittees. Socioeconomic factors of groups, crimes against groups, limitation of representation in society/government, etc... If you understand the difference between individual and group circumstances, It's not difficult to recognize how jokes can add insult to injury and should be refrained. Kicking those that are already down is the low hanging fruit of stand up.
2. See above about who implements the boundaries.
To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.
No. And I recall a conversation about horseshoe theory a while ago. Here's another one, there are specific faction on the far left and far right tend to hate comedy and be overly critical of it. Perhaps it is that correlation doesn't equal causation and that the extreme ends of the political spectrum are attractive toward toxic assholes.
That said, I aspire toward libertarian communism and consider myself on the far left :D
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
Also say you are not allowed to joke about disabled people anymore. Would really suck for comedians with disabilities to not be able have the freedom to talk about themselves like other comedians do...or is it ok for them to joke about it since they are affected by it? If yes, then you cant really have any rules that goes for everyone then.
KLXVER said: Also say you are not allowed to joke about disabled people anymore. Would really suck for comedians with disabilities to not be able have the freedom to talk about themselves like other comedians do...or is it ok for them to joke about it since they are affected by it? If yes, then you cant really have any rules that goes for everyone then. |
Well, you'd think that most countries giving comedians creative freedom would be the best thing, because whatever solution the woke population yearns for would create more problems than the original issue.
***To the mods, this topic should be in the politics forum, as it concerns state matters such as when freedom of speech should legally end.***
Last edited by shavenferret - on 27 April 2024I guess it comes down to each comedian determining what they are and aren't willing to joke about. There obviously isn't going to be some official rules that outlines what can and cannot be joked about.