Plus the misattribution of watered-down safe products from corporations as being because they're "pc or driven by diversity" instead of driven by profits and avoiding controversy because it would hurt their bottom line.
It's like saying that babies are to blame for bad children's programming.
Maybe you really don't know, but John Cleese is considered extremely funny, and has been for decades: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/oct/10/john-cleese-...
Bill Burr is also widely regarded as a good comedian, making funny jokes: https://actorsareidiots.com/bill-burr-people-taking-offense-...
Dave Chappelle made a similar complaint (that he will not be changing his material to bend to some people's demands) and is also widely regarded as funny: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/25/1049113893/dave-chappelle-res...
How about someone who is not widely known, but still considered quite highly as a funny person? Here's what she literally said: "Jokes used to be accepted as jokes [...] Morality police now dictate what we can and can’t say. " - https://www.chortle.co.uk/correspondents/2023/02/10/52508/go...
Yup, the actual funny people are complaining that they can't make actual jokes anymore: https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/comedians-online-censorship-...
I feel you should think long and hard before making a statement as orthogonal to reality as "The least funny people complain about their inability to make jokes".
If we really want to talk about these actual comedians (who are all very funny in their own right), I would say that Bill Burr is a snowflake who had a bad set, Dave Chappelle should really learn to not make jokes at the expense of people who are currently facing severe systemic oppression, and John Cleese is an over-reacting octogenarian, far past his prime and aligning himself with an anti-vax fake news network; not the arbiter of truth you think he is.
They aren't coming across as particularly sympathetic to me, and the comedy scene will forget them if they're not able to adapt their material to a changing generation. Comedy is temporally bound and what is good comedy changes over time.
People find different things funny, so there should be a diversity of choice in comedy. I've been to sets that I personally didn't find funny, but the audience was locals with a different sense of humour than me and they loved it. It wasn't bad, just not my style, but it didn't operate at the expense of someone else. I've been to sets where the comedian on stage floundered and lashed out at the audience for being too sensitive, and the next comedian killed it without being 'sensitive' to the audience, just by being funny.
Here are some funny comedians that I've seen this year that managed to not be transphobic or align themselves with conspiracy theories about vaccinations:
- Arthur Simeon
- The Lucas Brothers
- Malik Elassal
- Alonzo Bodden
- Joyelle Nicole Johnson
- Fortune Feimster
- Steph Tolev
Plus a bunch of others that I can't remember off the top of my head. Check them out if you care to. I don't think any of them are complaining that they can't be funny anymore, they're doing just fine, and I think they're bringing fresh comedy to the scene.
In my opinion, if the old guard wants to show themselves out because they feel like they can't compete, they should feel free to.
I refuted it, with actual evidence of funny people complaining that they can't make jokes anymore.
The fact that other funny people are not complaining is irrelevant, because that is not the claim you made.
because they can’t come up with material that isn’t at the expense of people facing systemic oppression
There are plenty of very funny comedians (with edgy acts, even!) that aren’t complaining about “cancel culture”. Check out Stavros Halkias maybe
Exactly, which is at odds with reality; see the list of complainers who are extremely funny people.
I explicitly didn't intend to scope my brief comment about "the least funny people" to encapsulate the entirety of humanity and I don't care to discuss this pedantic claim that "well technically N>0; QED".
Most of the comment you're saying doesn't matter was just me talking about comedians because I like comedy. If you don't like comedy, don't continue the conversation. If you disagree with something I said in a human capacity, not a "prove me wrong" capacity, then say so. I'm not as invested in this "claim" as you are to disproving it, clearly.
Men trying to force their way into women's spaces on the basis of some imagined 'gender identity' aren't facing oppression, they are the ones doing the oppressing - lobbying for laws and policies to be changed to eradicate female-only spaces everywhere.
It's the same old invasive misogyny we see from men everywhere, except this time it's supposedly progressive.
I'm glad that comedians like Dave Chappelle are poking fun at the ridiculousness of this. Laughing at an oppressive ideology really does help to undermine it.
Maybe it’s the content of your jokes that are the problem?
They had a character that was proud to have been part of the once great Taxes Nation, and I remember he too said something similar. Reminded me of what you just said.
"Remember when you could just hang the Mexican and Indians?"
Really deep, thought-provoking insight.
Really deep, thought-provoking insight.
No. Do you?
implicit comparison of GP to an unspecified made up character making racist comments
> I'm not even going to argue with you.
I see, because you brought no valid arguments in your comment.
> Now where is your god?
This phrase alone proves that discussing anything with you is of no use. Have a nice day.
The guy is implying he can't make jokes anymore because the jokes he wants to make are no longer politically correct, aka racist or sexist or whatever else. Yes I'm going to compare it to times when people lemented they could no longer be racist. What?
> This phrase alone proves that discussing anything with you is of no use.
It was a joke.
“Remember when we could just like lynch black people lmao XD”
Something is wrong with you guys.
Hilarious that you talk about nuance while explicitly removing nuance from the discussion by saying "A joke is a joke is a joke".
Ok dude, I'll look for your comedy special where you tell women to make you a sammich or put on a terribly racist Chinese accent and talk about eating cats or whatever.
Someone should have told that to the 12-18 year olds that would scream it at women as soon as one opened their mouth online in early xbox live during the "videogames are for boys" marketing era.
Since you seem to be arguing in good faith (albeit also in poor taste), when you ask a question like "Remember when you could make jokes?" it pegs your sense of humour to an era where women and minorities were the butt of oft repeated derogatory jokes. These jokes are not even worth considering for their comedic value because they were almost devoid of it in even the scenario that you outline.
A throwaway joke that relies on its shock value to derive any merit because it is not clever in the slightest. A category of joke that oversaturated the online landscape at one point, and now those with any sense of humour are numb to it.
When you repeat these types of jokes where the punchline is "racism" or "sexism" and people roll their eyes and don't laugh, it's not because they're offended, it's because your sense of humour is immature and underdeveloped.
So I repeat my earlier question: "Isn't it funny that the least funny people always complain about their inability to make jokes anymore?"
If it's a dog whistle that you can hear, then it's your whistle, summoning you, not the dogs
Well, honestly, I wasn't responding to an argument anyway, so why would I present an argument?
You argue: "Well technically a dog whistle is only audible to dogs so that means that you're a dog"
?? ok.
But that's not, to me, an argument - it's a expression of opinion, and you're free to hold one.
If you're saying that I misinterpreted it, maybe consider that it doesn't look like an argument - there's no evidence presented, there's no sequence of assertions, there's no antecedents, no consequence, no logical connectives ...
In short, there's no logic presented, which is why it looks, to me, like an opinion, and not a completely unreasonable one. One that I felt was made in good faith and so I could engage with in good faith.
> You argue: "Well technically a dog whistle is only audible to dogs so that means that you're a dog"
Ever read the last psychiatrist? A favourite phrase of his is "If you're reading it, it's for you." which sort of applies here - the claims of dog whistles/nazis/whatever are not to alert the general audience, but a rallying call to others of the same ideology.
It's a way to say "Come help me fight this argument because we believe the same things."
It is a dog whistle, but it's your dog whistle.
Being able to identify the conclusion that is not being said does not make me the target of the message. It just makes me someone with too much time invested in the 'culture wars' of today.
My observation is that "Dog whistle" is the new "They're a Nazi", which itself is the new "Think of the children".
They're all cognitive kill-switches and all mean the same thing - "I need to shutdown this conversation immediately".
Maybe there's a legit reason for shutting down a conversation, maybe there isn't, but the legitimacy of the reason is irrelevant to the fact that they are intended to shut down the conversation.
It's shaming language, designed to shame the other party into silence.
Prejudice by Tim Minchin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_(harassment_campaign...
Remember when you could make jokes?