"Really, you want to have me let the terrorist go free? What about the other guy?"
Crucify Him
General / Off-Topic Sticks & Stones
- Thread starter jasonbarron
- Start date
- Status
"Really, you want to have me let the terrorist go free? What about the other guy?"
Crucify Him
In general as an entrepreneur and business owner the advice I give is to be apolitical and un-opinionated when it comes to dealing with your market. Comics break that paradigm by having a job that literally requires them to take a chance on offending people on a daily basis. As you said earlier, being able to take a joke and laugh at yourself is an important aspect of emotional strength and health.
I imagine a comic has to balance that. Or at least consider it. Some don't care, and that's fine of course. Sure, it would be nice if they could say whatever they want whenever they wanted but that's not the world we live in.
What's the old saying? "The only thing worse than a hypocrite is an unemployed one."
The biggest problem with social media is a huge increase in echo chambers and tailored news which reinforce extreme idea's without any moderate views ever being heard.
I imagine a comic has to balance that. Or at least consider it. Some don't care, and that's fine of course. Sure, it would be nice if they could say whatever they want whenever they wanted but that's not the world we live in.
What's the old saying? "The only thing worse than a hypocrite is an unemployed one."
Unless the comics deliberately offending people as part of his/her act and persona, which means they care much more about offending people as they have to include it directed in just the right way to remain popular with their fans. Jeremy Clarkson does that.
Yep, Frankie Boyle is fantastic at what he does. The Brass Eye school of comedy.
Stewart Lee takes it to the next level as audience abuse is a major part of his act. He has routines that gently encourage the audience to laugh at other parts of the UK in an increasingly cutting way then he turns the same savage humour on them and ramps it right up almost daring them to be offended at regional jokes. They want to be angry, but they can't as they've already been laughing along with it so he can really push the boundaries whilst simultaneously showing the audience how hypocritical they are.
His Braveheart routine is one of the best bits of standup I've seen.
![[PS4] Filthymick420](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/201/201444.jpg?1555738739){kind=avatar}
I get that. But my lack of understanding comes from people who state they don't like stand-up comedy in general. It's just jokes, you can't take them seriously. If a person has a problem with humor and laughter, what kinda of dark brooding person are they?
See, that's the kind of clever stuff I like to hear about. I'll try to get 'round to Mr. Lee.
You can stream three series of his TV show comedy vehicle on the BBC's website. Outside the UK he's sometimes on Netflix (not right now though).
Or you can be naughty and watch his stuff anyway.
Phisto be naughty? Look at that innocent little smirk on his face!
It's not just about media people. It extends far beyond that. People are getting fired from normal everyday jobs because they've posted a nasty joke on their Twitter many years ago. There are people out there that will stop at nothing trying to ruin a life for somebody, because they believe their views on a world are the only ones worth having. They will contact your job, your family, dig up and leak your personal information to the public like it's their personal problem. Getting offended at a " a white guy, an Asian guy, and a black guy walk into a bar" joke. And I don't think Chappelle has problems with racist jokes seeing as he's on good terms with many comedians that have been accused of telling racist jokes.
Yeah, but just like "political correctness" and "SJW", the actual meaning of the phrase has diverged from how people actually use it.
"What do you mean I can't call other players the n-word in a pegi 7 rated game? It's political correctness gone mad!"
I think we're both rational people here, I wasn't talking about edge cases
Any ideology taken to the extreme is dangerous.
I don't know, but black lipstick is probably involved.
Goth still a thing, right?
Imagine if you were labelled and being made fun of on a regular basis, and not in a light-hearted manner either. I don't think you'd find it funny then if they'd made fun of you in public too, in the name of entertainment.
See, this is a first world perspective. But as you move farther away, you'll find that large organisations keep track of what you say in public too, and if you post anything that can be interpreted as criticising the government, the church and so on, you'll be in much more trouble than just unemployment. Then you do still have to worry about who you offend, even if you have no job. For example, going to the more extreme: getting blacklisted by employers, your relatives getting blacklisted too, going to jail for plenty of years, arriving at last to the death penalty.
Or maybe if you just someone off well enough, they'll report you to the authorities for whatever made-up reason.
Of course, all this is not new to social media, the general principle is older than feudalism. It's just that the internet makes it incredibly easy for anyone to preserve and find what you said or did, even years ago.
Though it might be considered "first world" by everyone else's standards, I reckon Caramel Clown to be dead on the money; today's cultural shift to social justice is all about de-platforming your opponent rather than debating your point in an exercise of free speech. This new shift would include weaponizing the #metoo movement. Less sophisticated countries might be more draconian, but the reason this discussion is important in Western Civilization is because we don't want it to get worse. Don't think it can? Go watch a video of Antifa beating down a journalist in Portland a few weeks back and tell me that you don't see the rise of evil.
Sounds like junior-high.
And what sort of perspectives would you imagine to encounter in such a venue?
The computer owning, video game playing, anglophone world is distinctly first-world. We are privileged and we tend to have perspectives that reflect this.
All reasons I take my privacy and relative anonymity seriously, and would go to even greater lengths in cases of more competent or pervasive surveillance.
In practice, in the first world, there is little that can be done within the bounds of law that will result in much harm coming to me, no matter what views I espouse, and few extralegal consequences that are likely. This is not likely to change.
I don't see the rise of anything. That would imply something new or novel.
Groups of protesters and counter-protesters have been beating each other, individuals they could identify as opponents (which would most certainly include journalists not sympathetic to their cause), and innocent bystanders for as long as people have had things to protest against.
I served somewhere "first world" where death threats (genuine ones not angry nerd garbage) from people nominally on the same side as you were routine if you were considered to be insufficiently biased against roughly half of the population you were being paid to protect.
That sort of thing was potentially as dangerous to talk about as to experience directly, as being civilized means hiding your dirty washing not that it doesn't exist. Blacklisting is fairly low key given the easy alternatives under those circumstances.
The #metoo and personality politics thing operates in the open and we all know the rules its an entirely different magnitude of issue.
- Status