[Humour] Jerry Sadowitz gig cancelled at Edinburgh Fringe

[Stato]

I'd love JK Rowling to stage the Sadowitz gig herself on her own property, she'll be spoilt for choice as she has plenty no doubt. Might show everyone what she's really about these days

The position this has put the internet's anti-trans brigade into seems quite ironic. They have spent ages arguing that allowing trans women to use the toilets of their choice will create unacceptable risk of exposure and now find themselves arguing that a man who reportedly flashed his genitals to a woman whilst on stage is the innocent victim of cancel culture.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

'Offensive' is a red herring here. Everything is offensive to somebody. Those who would have us all believe that there is a Woke Stasi dictating what artists can and cannot say are fixated on symptom rather than cause. Trace all of these stories to their root and they are all about balancing freedom with responsibility. We all like the idea of artistic freedom, but in a world where everything has a price, those who fear that they will be held responsible for the artist's freedom make a calculation and, in a society that is more litigious and where consumer rights are stronger, they tend more towards caution.

Financial power influencing art is not a new thing. There are countless stories from the early days of US television where broadcasting decisions were influenced by sponsor power. The art of the Renaissance was commissioned by rich and powerful patrons. There has never been complete artistic freedom unless the artist is willing to risk starvation. What has changed is that the power and money is now held by corporations whose raison d'etre is to minimise risk and maximise profit. One of the greatest risks is litigation and another is bad publicity.

The proliferation of bans on smoking in work places across the western world at the start of this century wasn't because governments and businesses were concerned for public health, it was in fear of class actions from employees exposed to secondary smoke. The Health and Safety boom may seem annoying to those who feel that their freedoms are being limited, but it has not happened because of the nanny state or complaints from lefties, it has happened because shareholders needed protection from potentially hugely expensive litigation.

The internet has hugely increased the risk to which corporations can be exposed to bad publicity. Customer complaints can become social media campaigns in the blink of an eye and those whose job it is to protect shareholder profit have reacted to this increased level of risk with the same increased caution as they have to legislative risk. It doesn’t matter whether the complaint comes from the left or the right politically, there will always be a cost benefit analysis and businesses will act accordingly: The Pleasance’s risk of creating upset amongst their staff and punters across multiple venues was greater than the money they could make from standing up for Sadowitz’s artistic freedom whereas the amount of money Spotify is making from Joe Rogan far outstrips the risk of bad publicity or cancelled subscriptions of old Neil Young fans.

In a lockdown podcast I heard Alexei Sayle tell a story of back in the nineties being sent to see a BBC lawyer over a sketch that may have upset Disney. He recalled how the lawyer’s attitude was pretty much ‘f*** Disney, we’re the BBC.’ The world has changed since then and very few, if any, arts commissioners have this kind of self confidence in the face of risk. This doesn’t mean that artistic freedom is under attack from either woke lefties, or from culture warrior right wingers, it is under pressure from the compromise that must be made with an unpredictable and uncontrollable world market.

The world has changed and its not going back and and though those of us who enjoyed the art may mourn the demise of the cutting edge stuff of our youth it is probably not helpful to try to force things back to a point where freedoms seemed greater. Especially as the freedoms of some meant the risk of exploitation of others. Taking just the BBC as an example, we can all wish for the return of the kind of self confidence that could see them not scared of Disney, but lets not forget that the same kind of feeling of being bulletproof was probably quite a contributing factor to it being an organisation that swept aside all complaints about the actions of Jimmy Savile. Having things in place to protect people as well as artistic freedoms is a balancing act, but law will generally lean towards protection. Business knows this, and, as business now runs everything, it is this knowledge, and not a freak generation of snowflakes, that is infringing on widespread access to art that pushes boundaries.

There is a push back by business happening though.

Get woke, go broke really does happen out there and there's plenty of examples of projects or promotions failing due to such marketing strategies.

Netflix for one seems to have worked out that the fringe who make the most noise don't actually contribute sweet fa to bottom lines.


Thus for all their moaning and bleating about Dave Chappelle the business told the activists sod off and backed Chappelle in.

Spotify did the same thing with Joe Rogan.

Those things only happened because the voice of the majority which is the people who don't like to be told what to think and do started voting with their wallets, pushing back and putting their money where their mouth is has brought a few about turns which could encourage more business to do so.

 

[BadFish]

'Offensive' is a red herring here. Everything is offensive to somebody. Those who would have us all believe that there is a Woke Stasi dictating what artists can and cannot say are fixated on symptom rather than cause. Trace all of these stories to their root and they are all about balancing freedom with responsibility. We all like the idea of artistic freedom, but in a world where everything has a price, those who fear that they will be held responsible for the artist's freedom make a calculation and, in a society that is more litigious and where consumer rights are stronger, they tend more towards caution.

Financial power influencing art is not a new thing. There are countless stories from the early days of US television where broadcasting decisions were influenced by sponsor power. The art of the Renaissance was commissioned by rich and powerful patrons. There has never been complete artistic freedom unless the artist is willing to risk starvation. What has changed is that the power and money is now held by corporations whose raison d'etre is to minimise risk and maximise profit. One of the greatest risks is litigation and another is bad publicity.

The proliferation of bans on smoking in work places across the western world at the start of this century wasn't because governments and businesses were concerned for public health, it was in fear of class actions from employees exposed to secondary smoke. The Health and Safety boom may seem annoying to those who feel that their freedoms are being limited, but it has not happened because of the nanny state or complaints from lefties, it has happened because shareholders needed protection from potentially hugely expensive litigation.

The internet has hugely increased the risk to which corporations can be exposed to bad publicity. Customer complaints can become social media campaigns in the blink of an eye and those whose job it is to protect shareholder profit have reacted to this increased level of risk with the same increased caution as they have to legislative risk. It doesn’t matter whether the complaint comes from the left or the right politically, there will always be a cost benefit analysis and businesses will act accordingly: The Pleasance’s risk of creating upset amongst their staff and punters across multiple venues was greater than the money they could make from standing up for Sadowitz’s artistic freedom whereas the amount of money Spotify is making from Joe Rogan far outstrips the risk of bad publicity or cancelled subscriptions of old Neil Young fans.

In a lockdown podcast I heard Alexei Sayle tell a story of back in the nineties being sent to see a BBC lawyer over a sketch that may have upset Disney. He recalled how the lawyer’s attitude was pretty much ‘f*** Disney, we’re the BBC.’ The world has changed since then and very few, if any, arts commissioners have this kind of self confidence in the face of risk. This doesn’t mean that artistic freedom is under attack from either woke lefties, or from culture warrior right wingers, it is under pressure from the compromise that must be made with an unpredictable and uncontrollable world market.

The world has changed and its not going back and and though those of us who enjoyed the art may mourn the demise of the cutting edge stuff of our youth it is probably not helpful to try to force things back to a point where freedoms seemed greater. Especially as the freedoms of some meant the risk of exploitation of others. Taking just the BBC as an example, we can all wish for the return of the kind of self confidence that could see them not scared of Disney, but lets not forget that the same kind of feeling of being bulletproof was probably quite a contributing factor to it being an organisation that swept aside all complaints about the actions of Jimmy Savile. Having things in place to protect people as well as artistic freedoms is a balancing act, but law will generally lean towards protection. Business knows this, and, as business now runs everything, it is this knowledge, and not a freak generation of snowflakes, that is infringing on widespread access to art that pushes boundaries.

Could it be that the 'business' that you speak of don't really want every Tom Dick and Harry to know this stuff so they concoct/invest/fan the flams of the culture wars that seek to blame the snowflakes/soft cocks/woke or what ever other meaningless tropes people use to deflect the blame.

And people lap it up. Look at the amount of decisions that are blamed on this mysterious group. An open mind, a little critical thinking and a little research most often prove that there is a far more rational explanation. But still, the culture wars rage on.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

The position this has put the internet's anti-trans brigade into seems quite ironic. They have spent ages arguing that allowing trans women to use the toilets of their choice will create unacceptable risk of exposure and now find themselves arguing that a man who reportedly flashed his genitals to a woman whilst on stage is the innocent victim of cancel culture.

The real irony is that many pro-trans groups think it's acceptable for a woman to feel uncomfortable having men in their toilets/change rooms but it's not ok to tell trans jokes because it makes some people uncomfortable and offended.

If you turn up to his show you would already know you might see a penis.

If you go into a women's change rooms you wouldn't expect to be confronted by a male's penis.

See the difference?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Could it be that the 'business' that you speak of don't really want every Tom Dick and Harry to know this stuff so they concoct/invest/fan the flams of the culture wars that seek to blame the snowflakes/soft cocks/woke or what ever other meaningless tropes people use to deflect the blame.

And people lap it up. Look at the amount of decisions that are blamed on this mysterious group. An open mind, a little critical thinking and a little research most often prove that there is a far more rational explanation. But still, the culture wars rage on.

It's not hard to find the people you seem to think are a mysterious group.

They are everywhere on twitter, tik tok etc

There's tonnes of YouTube videos even filming them.

Prime example the moron woman who is playing a female dwarf in the Tolkien abomination Bezos billions is paying for.

Listen to the clown talk and it's like she's a charicature of these people.

 

[BadFish]

'Offensive' is a red herring here. Everything is offensive to somebody. Those who would have us all believe that there is a Woke Stasi dictating what artists can and cannot say are fixated on symptom rather than cause. Trace all of these stories to their root and they are all about balancing freedom with responsibility. We all like the idea of artistic freedom, but in a world where everything has a price, those who fear that they will be held responsible for the artist's freedom make a calculation and, in a society that is more litigious and where consumer rights are stronger, they tend more towards caution.

Financial power influencing art is not a new thing. There are countless stories from the early days of US television where broadcasting decisions were influenced by sponsor power. The art of the Renaissance was commissioned by rich and powerful patrons. There has never been complete artistic freedom unless the artist is willing to risk starvation. What has changed is that the power and money is now held by corporations whose raison d'etre is to minimise risk and maximise profit. One of the greatest risks is litigation and another is bad publicity.

The proliferation of bans on smoking in work places across the western world at the start of this century wasn't because governments and businesses were concerned for public health, it was in fear of class actions from employees exposed to secondary smoke. The Health and Safety boom may seem annoying to those who feel that their freedoms are being limited, but it has not happened because of the nanny state or complaints from lefties, it has happened because shareholders needed protection from potentially hugely expensive litigation.

The internet has hugely increased the risk to which corporations can be exposed to bad publicity. Customer complaints can become social media campaigns in the blink of an eye and those whose job it is to protect shareholder profit have reacted to this increased level of risk with the same increased caution as they have to legislative risk. It doesn’t matter whether the complaint comes from the left or the right politically, there will always be a cost benefit analysis and businesses will act accordingly: The Pleasance’s risk of creating upset amongst their staff and punters across multiple venues was greater than the money they could make from standing up for Sadowitz’s artistic freedom whereas the amount of money Spotify is making from Joe Rogan far outstrips the risk of bad publicity or cancelled subscriptions of old Neil Young fans.

In a lockdown podcast I heard Alexei Sayle tell a story of back in the nineties being sent to see a BBC lawyer over a sketch that may have upset Disney. He recalled how the lawyer’s attitude was pretty much ‘f*** Disney, we’re the BBC.’ The world has changed since then and very few, if any, arts commissioners have this kind of self confidence in the face of risk. This doesn’t mean that artistic freedom is under attack from either woke lefties, or from culture warrior right wingers, it is under pressure from the compromise that must be made with an unpredictable and uncontrollable world market.

The world has changed and its not going back and and though those of us who enjoyed the art may mourn the demise of the cutting edge stuff of our youth it is probably not helpful to try to force things back to a point where freedoms seemed greater. Especially as the freedoms of some meant the risk of exploitation of others. Taking just the BBC as an example, we can all wish for the return of the kind of self confidence that could see them not scared of Disney, but lets not forget that the same kind of feeling of being bulletproof was probably quite a contributing factor to it being an organisation that swept aside all complaints about the actions of Jimmy Savile. Having things in place to protect people as well as artistic freedoms is a balancing act, but law will generally lean towards protection. Business knows this, and, as business now runs everything, it is this knowledge, and not a freak generation of snowflakes, that is infringing on widespread access to art that pushes boundaries.

Netflix is probably a good example of this. This week I have read on a number (well almost every one) of threads about Sandman that it is woke. Many have pulled out the 'go woke, go broke' notion. I've not seen it yet but a couple of things have interested me 1, it is the number one watched show on Netflix in about 60 different countries. 2. from talking to friends who were into the comics in the 90's (the halycon days before all this woke business (sic)) they have always been highly inclusive, aware and respectful of others (in other words 'woke').

If you add to this Netflix's reaction to Dave Chapelle and his politically incorrect stuff, which they ignored it seems to me that you are correct. Netflix don't give a shit about the culture wars and are more interested in making a profit. If some half-wit thinks it is offensive or another thinks it considers others' feelings too much is neither here nor there.

 

[BadFish]

It's not hard to find the people you seem to think are a mysterious group.

They are everywhere on twitter, tik tok etc

There's tonnes of YouTube videos even filming them.

Prime example the moron woman who is playing a female dwarf in the Tolkien abomination Bezos billions is paying for.

Listen to the clown talk and it's like she's a charicature of these people.

. . . and ever has been so. What you have to question is why do you want to find them? Is their opinion one that is going to enhance your life in some way?

The only difference these days is that they have platforms to speak on and a load of reactionary twits to argue with, People have opinions and a platform to air them - freedom of speech.

Why others feel the need to label them with nonsense terms and try to blame the ills of the world on them is another thing entirely. All they do is make the platform bigger and encourage others.

The culture wars are bullshit. Two sets of morons screaming their opinions at each other with neither listening.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

. . . and ever has been so. What you have to question is why do you want to find them? Is their opinion one that is going to enhance your life in some way?

The only difference these days is that they have platforms to speak on and a load of reactionary twits to argue with, People have opinions and a platform to air them - freedom of speech.

Why others feel the need to label them with nonsense terms and try to blame the ills of the world on them is another thing entirely. All they do is make the platform bigger and encourage others.

The culture wars are bullshit. Two sets of morons screaming their opinions at each other with neither listening.

It's not about finding them.

Such is technology they get dumped into your lap even if you never sought it out. Algorithms.

The new Tolkien show is a great example of how something that was quite brilliant and a masterpiece got dragged into culture war garbage by one side.

All of a sudden you have people banging on about women's agency, LBQT, POC garbage when none of it has anything to do with Tolkien's stories and world.


So this will be labelled like many things a "culture" war" when in reality it's more likely to be one group who don't really like something but want to screw it up for a bunch of other people who do actually enjoy something.


That's the true bullshit going on.

 

[Russconha]

Je suis Jerry

 

[BadFish]

It's not about finding them.

Such is technology they get dumped into your lap even if you never sought it out. Algorithms.

The new Tolkien show is a great example of how something that was quite brilliant and a masterpiece got dragged into culture war garbage by one side.

All of a sudden you have people banging on about women's agency, LBQT, POC garbage when none of it has anything to do with Tolkien's stories and world.


So this will be labelled like many things a "culture" war" when in reality it's more likely to be one group who don't really like something but want to screw it up for a bunch of other people who do actually enjoy something.


That's the true bullshit going on.

The thing about algorithms is that they adpat to your viewing/reading habits. Most of these opinions don't get dumped in my lap. But then I am not in the war.

I'll watch Sandman and I'll watch the new Lord of the Rings no idea if I will enjoy them or not but one thing I am quite sure is that my opinion will not depend on how 'woke' you or anyone else thinks they are.

So this will be labelled like many things a "culture" war" when in reality it's more likely to be one group who don't really like something but want to screw it up for a bunch of other people who do actually enjoy something.

Quite. It is all about opinions, one side don't like the other's opinions on something and you all go round and round calling each other names. If you don't like the new LOTR don't watch it, as you say leave it to those who enjoy it.

Why the need to politicize it and use it to further your agenda about LGBTQ, women's issues and Race?

That said, you have more or less admitted that you are a troll on here (or 'devil's advocate') so the question really answers itself.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Could it be that the 'business' that you speak of don't really want every Tom Dick and Harry to know this stuff so they concoct/invest/fan the flams of the culture wars that seek to blame the snowflakes/soft cocks/woke or what ever other meaningless tropes people use to deflect the blame.

And people lap it up. Look at the amount of decisions that are blamed on this mysterious group. An open mind, a little critical thinking and a little research most often prove that there is a far more rational explanation. But still, the culture wars rage on.

You have constructed one hell of a conspiracy theory there. Business exists to make money. That’s all. All of this sounds a lot more prosaic to me. This collection of racists and too cool for school ironic racists just need to find a new venue for their hero. Thirty years ago the majority of us wouldn’t have known or cared about any of this because there was no internet to talk about it on.

 

[BadFish]

You have constructed one hell of a conspiracy theory there. Business exists to make money. That’s all. All of this sounds a lot more prosaic to me. This collection of racists and too cool for school ironic racists just need to find a new venue for their hero. Thirty years ago the majority of us wouldn’t have known or cared about any of this because there was no internet to talk about it on.

Yeah, I have you are right. There are certain sections of the media that love to peddle this culture wars crap but I guess it is probably more about selling content than any kind of conspiracy.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

People complain about someone complaining about something. How VERY 2022!

I'm OUTRAGED on everyone's behalf.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

The thing about algorithms is that they adpat to your viewing/reading habits. Most of these opinions don't get dumped in my lap. But then I am not in the war.

If you searched Lord Of The Rings you will get Rings Of Power content on YouTube. Even though you didn't search for it.

I'll watch Sandman and I'll watch the new Lord of the Rings no idea if I will enjoy them or not but one thing I am quite sure is that my opinion will not depend on how 'woke' you or anyone else thinks they are.

Is that because you don't seem to care how faithful something is to the source material?

That's all most fans of books want when adapted to shows/movies.

Quite. It is all about opinions, one side don't like the other's opinions on something and you all go round and round calling each other names. If you don't like the new LOTR don't watch it, as you say leave it to those who enjoy it.

Push back is important else you'll have woeful show runners thinking they did a marvelous job rather than butchering a classic.

Why the need to politicize it and use it to further your agenda about LGBTQ, women's issues and Race?

The only people who politicised it are the writers and actors.

You must have missed all the interviews where they are spouting their nonsense which as often is the case you don't follow so know nothing of.


I mean every interview the clown playing the Disa character is interviewed they bring up their colour and then lie about how they are the first of something.

That said, you have more or l
ess admitted that you are a troll on here (or 'devil's advocate') so the question really answers itself.

The answer is you don't follow it so have no idea what you're talking about. Which is fine. If you don't want to follow the show that's your call.

 

[BadFish]

If you searched Lord Of The Rings you will get Rings Of Power content on YouTube. Even though you didn't search for it.

Is that because you don't seem to care how faithful something is to the source material?

That's all most fans of books want when adapted to shows/movies.

I wouldn't say that. It is more that I have an understanding that this is someone's adaptation of the source material. I realise that they are going to have interpreted that material in their own way. I also realise that the adaptation is going to be influenced by more modern attitudes and themes. I try to take things on their own merits and will continue to do so without feeling the need to gatekeep how others see and interpret things.

Like I say i haven't seen the new LOTR adaptation yet so don't know if I will like it. One thing is for sue though the fact that it has got women and people of colour in it will not make any difference to my opinion.

Anyway, you seem to enjoy doing things your way So do carry on, happy trolling

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

If you searched Lord Of The Rings you will get Rings Of Power content on YouTube. Even though you didn't search for it.



Is that because you don't seem to care how faithful something is to the source material?

That's all most fans of books want when adapted to shows/movies.





Push back is important else you'll have woeful show runners thinking they did a marvelous job rather than butchering a classic.




The only people who politicised it are the writers and actors.

You must have missed all the interviews where they are spouting their nonsense which as often is the case you don't follow so know nothing of.


I mean every interview the clown playing the Disa character is interviewed they bring up their colour and then lie about how they are the first of something.




The answer is you don't follow it so have no idea what you're talking about. Which is fine. If you don't want to follow the show that's your call.

But that isn’t the purpose of making a film of a book. They are different mediums. I haven’t read this book but if I did my imagination would summon up a different picture than yours. Same for everybody. You need to set lower expectations of replication between books and films and take or leave someone else’s interpretation. There is absolutely no obligation for it to match yours.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Building your comedy around offensive humor indicates that you're either not very intelligent, or a very clever businessman who knows there are plenty of low-intelligence people out there willing to pay for your shite.

He doesn’t build his comedy around offensive humour as he does magic as well! He is an incredible magician but this is always overlooked.

Anyway, his show is a constant ‘steam of consciousness’ rant where he abuses every minority one by one. As I’ve said before, it’s a very interesting (not necessarily funny) experience. I’d never watch him again though. Just like I’d never go on another visit to Auschwitz. I’d still recommend people experience his live stuff once despite the title. The utter hatred for all humanity spouted at you is original and valuable art. Originality is underrated. The title of his show is true though, no matter what your politics or background, you will be offended.

Jerry Sadowitz: Not for Anyone.

I don’t have a lot of time for members of the audience who complained bearing in mind the title of the show tells you exactly what the content will be.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I wouldn't say that. It is more that I have an understanding that this is someone's adaptation of the source material. I realise that they are going to have interpreted that material in their own way. I also realise that the adaptation is going to be influenced by more modern attitudes and themes. I try to take things on their own merits and will continue to do so without feeling the need to gatekeep how others see and interpret things.

Like I say i haven't seen the new LOTR adaptation yet so don't know if I will like it. One thing is for sue though the fact that it has got women and people of colour in it will not make any difference to my opinion.

Anyway, you seem to enjoy doing things your way So do carry on, happy trolling

They haven't interpreted it at all though. Galadriel is easy to interpret, it's all there for them yet they totally butchered a much love character.

You must not have seen any previews either.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Locals will get a chance to check out JS' current material for themselves later in the year - assuming he doesn't get cancelled first...

 

[BadFish]

They haven't interpreted it at all though. Galadriel is easy to interpret, it's all there for them yet they totally butchered a much love character.

You must not have seen any previews either.