Ironically, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/05/matt-l...

The comedians themselves are contradicting you.

Re-watch many comedians from the 80s and 90s and they're just being close-minded rather than actually being funny.

The worst I remember was when in the office we'd all call each other gay for silly things. "You not coming out tonight drinking? Are you gay?".

Then we hired a homosexual.

For months we still all made 'gay' jokes. He said he didn't mind. They would just slip out, that's how we talked to each other. "ah man, who would write a function like that? It's so gay!".

I still feel ashamed today thinking back on actually how hostile that workplace actually was to him. Even if he really didn't care, we were still basically constantly saying Gay Is Wrong. We were idiots. We were wrong.

It's not being sensitive, it's simply being close-minded.

There is a lot of irony in accusations of close-mindedness when they come from people who think all the past generations and everyone outside of Western middle-class left-wing cultural sphere are "wrong" about humor.

>Re-watch many comedians from the 80s and 90s and they're just being close-minded rather than actually being funny.

Obviously not a Carlin fan! Its very easy to be open-minded and completely insensitive. Emotional sensitivity is not a desirable attribute, despite its current popularity.

This is life. We should do our best to be right even though we are probably not. It's that or throw our hands up and quit trying.

I agree. But it's also folly to have the too-common attitude of "wow, that thing I did in the past was wrong -- and I know it because today I'm 100% correct."

Okay, but if I find something I enjoyed in the past now makes me uncomfortable, I'm not going to force myself to feel comfortable with it out of some sense of pride. Similarly, I would likely be bored today by many of the TV shows I used to watch as a kid. Tastes change.

I rewatched the original Blade Runner earlier this week in preparation for the new movie and the love scene between Deckard and Rachael is surprisingly rapey (he overpowers her). It doesn't hold up well over time, and wouldn't be written like that today.

Totally agreed that societal mores change over time and you can retroactively realize that something wasn't OK.

The reason he overpowers her is because she's a thing, not a person. Deckard doesn't kill replicants, he retires them.

The guilt, along with his confrontation with the other Nexuses and the (ambiguous) realization he's the one doing the dangerous work because he too is not a person, is what changes him.

One possible introspection is to ask what fundamental change happened between then and now. The difference can help amplify life's progress. Just a thought.

Whoso belongs only to his own age, and reverences only its gilt Popinjays or smoot-smeared Mumbojumbos, must needs die with it. - Thomas Carlyle

Every time I read, chew, and fully digest a Carlyle sentence, I feel full.

Most contemporary writing feels like cotton candy that dissolves easily in the mind, when compared to the rack of lamb you take in from Carlyle.

Well said.