[Film] Ricky Gervais.

[Randy McNob]

i respect your right to be offended , removing statues does absolutely nothing to bring about equality , that horse has bolted as equality is a socio economic issue these days , there are plenty of middle and upper class non white people and there are equally a huge number of white folk living in poverty , unfortunately on a global level and on the whole , equality is further away now than what it was 200 years ago. Social engineering and manipulation as alive and kicking on a global level , the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and more numerous by the hour.

But your views on it will not contribute towards a fairer and equal society, much the opposite.

There are dark forces out there with the aim of dividing people, they want you to hate others views and sling mud, don't fall for it, challenge yourself to appreciate both side of the argument whether you agree or not because you would want them to do the same. That way we all get along better. Unless you're talking about an undisputed fact there is no right or wrong answer to anything, people just have different takes on it. Wear the other persons shoes and challenge your own perspectives. No one's perfect

 

[BadFish]

I respect your right to be offended, but I don’t respect your right to be the final arbiter on acceptability.

There are billions of people in this world, all of whom are equally assured that they know where the line should be drawn. And they’re right, for themselves only.

Instead of calling things unacceptable, just say that you find them offensive, and there’s no argument.

The problem is that there’s currently a few billion Mary Whitehouse’s goose-stepping round the earth, all certain that they know the one true place where the line between acceptability and unacceptability should be set.

You get to set that line for yourself, no one else. Nobody should be setting that line for others “own good” until we get into the very darkest abscesses of humanity.

TLDR: Saying “offended” = fine, saying “unacceptable” = dial it down, nobody has made you the spokesperson for humanity.

Broadly I agree with you but with a couple of caveats.

1. Some things are unacceptable and should be called out as such.

2. Not sure there are a few billion Mary Whitehouse but there are certainly a few. What gets me is that they get so much air time. The culture wars give them a massive platform when they are most likely the exception. So many people arguing about shit the rest of us shrug and pay little heed. People who want to cancel people for holding views they don't like are divs, we a know it. The people who argue with these divs on social media and in the press are just giving their nonsense oxygen, and they are also divs. then everyone else tales a side and we get team div v team div and they all get more air time.


The thing is most people aren't divs and have something worthwhile to say. Worth listening to other rather than assuming they are cancelling or being politically correct and dismissing them.



Sent from my M2010J19CG using Tapatalk

 

[Randy McNob]

I respect your right to be offended, but I don’t respect your right to be the final arbiter on acceptability.

There are billions of people in this world, all of whom are equally assured that they know where the line should be drawn. And they’re right, for themselves only.

Instead of calling things unacceptable, just say that you find them offensive, and there’s no argument.

The problem is that there’s currently a few billion Mary Whitehouse’s goose-stepping round the earth, all certain that they know the one true place where the line between acceptability and unacceptability should be set.

You get to set that line for yourself, no one else. Nobody should be setting that line for others “own good” until we get into the very darkest abscesses of humanity.

TLDR: Saying “offended” = fine, saying “unacceptable” = dial it down, nobody has made you the spokesperson for humanity.

well, not reallly, if you go back in time there must have point where someone decided there was no place for Bernard Manning, the Minstrels, love thy neighbour even though at the time being openly racist in public was the norm. Someone has to take first step to create that boundary which most will disagree but over time we look back and realise and have better understanding.

If people aren't making those arguments how do we change and evolve?

Seems like you like so many others cannot accept opposing views

 

[Randy McNob]

This speech is brilliant I implore you to watch. It powerfully shows how you can change someone by respecting their views no matter how abhorrent

 

[keaton]

Broadly I agree with you but with a couple of caveats.

1. Some things are unacceptable and should be called out as such.

2. Not sure there are a few billion Mary Whitehouse but there are certainly a few. What gets me is that they get so much air time. The culture wars give them a massive platform when they are most likely the exception. So many people arguing about shit the rest of us shrug and pay little heed. People who want to cancel people for holding views they don't like are divs, we a know it. The people who argue with these divs on social media and in the press are just giving their nonsense oxygen, and they are also divs. then everyone else tales a side and we get team div v team div and they all get more air time.



Sent from my M2010J19CG using Tapatalk

But this is where people being inconsistent is the real issue. Because two pages ago you were saying people in this thread calling Gervais a **** was the same as cancel culture and now you're calling on people divs. So you're point appears to be cancel culture is wrong, Gervais should be able to say what he likes, as should you, but people you disagree with shouldn't.

 

[usernamed]

well, not reallly, if you go back in time there must have point where someone decided there was no place for Bernard Manning, the Minstrels, love thy neighbour even though at the time being openly racist in public was the norm. Someone has to take first step to create that boundary which most will disagree but over time we look back and realise and have better understanding.

If people aren't making those arguments how do we change and evolve?

Seems like you like so many others cannot accept opposing views

On the contrary, I am accepting that your opposing view is right for you. It seems you are unable to afford me the same courtesy.

I appreciate this will be difficult for you, but the lack of tolerance in this scenario is yours.

 

[BadFish]

But this is where people being inconsistent is the real issue. Because two pages ago you were saying people in this thread calling Gervais a **** was the same as cancel culture and now you're calling on people divs. So you're point appears to be cancel culture is wrong, Gervais should be able to say what he likes, as should you, but people you disagree with shouldn't.

I am not sure that I have been inconsistent, nor do I think that people being inconsistent is the real issue (what do you mean by this?)

Not quite but I do take your point I probably should call them divs. So I will take that back (actually I don't as I discuss later - perhaps you are right, I am inconsistent!). (Although I think they are . . . Hang on am I allowed that opinion? Because it seems like you are suggesting that I can't have or share that opinion but that would be inconsistent to your post too - aaahh this is tough )

The point I made a while back was that calling someone a **** because you don't like their comedy was in the same vain (not the same) as trying to cancel people because you don't like their comedy. I stand by this point. (It was in-fact in reference to James Acaster, not Gervais)

Those I referred to as divs are totally welcome to air their views (and they do). Just as I am allowed to air my views about their nonsense. Or more likely ignore their nonsense as I don't see it as productive or worthwhile. Importantly though I support their right to air their views I just don't understand why so many people give their nonsense credibility by engaging with them.

To add to that, the difference between the poster calling James Acaster a **** and me calling these opposing groups of people divs is quite simple. I have seen plenty of evidence in the form of the divvy things they write about wanting people banned and canceled or conversely trying to make every discussion about cancel culture and political correctness.Whereas the poster seemed to have little (or at least shared little) evidence about Acaster. It appeared he held that opinion because he doesn't his comedy. Who knows perhaps he knows more that that and saw him kick a cat or something.

Sent from my M2010J19CG using Tapatalk

 

[sydney]

But your views on it will not contribute towards a fairer and equal society, much the opposite.

There are dark forces out there with the aim of dividing people, they want you to hate others views and sling mud, don't fall for it, challenge yourself to appreciate both side of the argument whether you agree or not because you would want them to do the same. That way we all get along better. Unless you're talking about an undisputed fact there is no right or wrong answer to anything, people just have different takes on it. Wear the other persons shoes and challenge your own perspectives. No one's perfect

mate , I've just had 27 days in Southern Africa , believe me i am very aware of viewing situations from other peoples perspectives , the post colonial Politicians have assumed the roles of their predecessors perfectly , there is very little real change other than there are now a hell of a lot more filthy rich Africans around , there is still wholesale poverty and corruption , the perpetual bed fellows.

 

[Wozza]

Yes, but those gigs are still in front of Ricky Gervais fans paying to see Ricky Gervais.

Well, that's true. But you could say the same (basically, personality more important than material) about any comedian who's reached a certain level, no matter what their route to stardom.

Plenty of average comedians have got a huge leg-up from TV panel shows, for example.

 

[Nixonator]

https://youtu.be/adh0KGmgmQw

What asinine bollocks that is, and 5 minutes I long more than any other wasted time to be able to get back.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

This speech is brilliant I implore you to watch. It powerfully shows how you can change someone by respecting their views no matter how abhorrent

[emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A326B using Tapatalk

 

[NorthstandRacoon]

I agree that Acaster is rubbish. Very annoying personality. However, the rest of your post is simply untrue.


Any comedian can say anything they want. As long as they can find a venue to host them and they don’t wander in to the realms of hate-speak.

If you go on telly with an edgy act, you’ll likely offend someone but that has been the case since telly started broadcasting. Mary Whitehouse founded her Clean Up Television group in 1964, almost 60 years ago.

I think we are living through particularly sensitive times but the laws remain the same and people are still allowed to be as offensive as they wish.

I agree people cannot be offensive as they wish and do understand your point. But comedians cannot say what they want, those in the public eye anyway. Most don't go too far at all. Gervais has just said a normal funny joke and the usual idiots have got their knickers in a twist.

I agree, these are sensitive times and I'm not sure I like it at all. There's some positives to this though which is acceptance and tolerance, but there's also the flip side where you get people going over the top with their feeling of being offended over nothing. It's so frustrating.

 

[NorthstandRacoon]

Ooh look at the brave, edgy comedians. Kicking down against a much maligned and persecuted minority. Then having to cower in fear in their massive ****-off LA mansions with nothing to do but count their millions. Hiding from all the woke mobs saying things like “maybe being cruel to a group you haven’t bothered trying to understand and instead make cheap, lurid jokes about isn’t cool, y’know?”

Are you ok, Precious?

 

[NorthstandRacoon]

What are these good comedians scared of? Gervais & Chappelle are very influential men with huge audiences and haven't lost their very lucrative Netflix deals. All they've had to deal with is some people expressing different views about their choices. If the shouty right wing bits of the internet are as keen on free speech as they all endlessly claim to be, that's not scary, its healthy.

The Office was great but Gervais isn't a real stand up. He never had to learn his craft in comedy clubs, he went straight from The Office to arenas full of people who were already massive fans. He never found out what was his good material and what didn't work or was hacky and should be jettisoned, because his audience lapped everything up whatever the quality. I find it ironic that, in Extras he spiked comedians who would sell out their TV shows, settling for poor quality art in exchange for mainstream success and money. He then did exactly that in his stand up career. In contrast, Acaster has served his time, learned his craft and is currently one of the best and most original stand ups on the circuit. That doesn't mean that he'd have a great sitcom in him. They are massively different skills, as I wish someone would tell the excellent stand up, but writer of 'Not Going Out', Lee Mack.

For me, the funniest thing that Gervais has been involved in since The Office was the Cookdandbomd website's hatewatch of 'Derek'.

I forgot who it was that said it, but it was an article in the paper about comedians now having to be so careful in what they say in case some precious darlings get offended. They felt like comedy was dying slowly because of it.

I kind of agree. I mean, who gets annoyed by jokes ffs? As long as they aren't persistently making them, it's not horrible nasty and it's a one off, who genuinely cares? If you don't like it, just don't listen.

Just my opinion anyway.

 

[NorthstandRacoon]

This speech is brilliant I implore you to watch. It powerfully shows how you can change someone by respecting their views no matter how abhorrent

That guy is a hero for me. I've seen and read about this.

 

[A1X]

Are you ok, Precious?

I’m fine. I’m not the one whinging because some people still think manners matter.

 

[highflyer]

Gervais TV writing is excellent. Office was one of the best things ever and Extras and Afterlife were both very good.

His stand up can be really funny and clever at times, although the transphobic stuff wasn't either of those things. It was cliched and lazy. My main gripe with him though is that he spends far too much time explaining how clever he is and how his critics are wrong and stupid.

If I want middle aged white guys explaining to me how much cleverer they are than everyone else, I can come here and get it on tap for free.

 

[clapham_gull]

My main gripe with him though is that he spends far too much time explaining how clever he is and how his critics are wrong and stupid..

.. and how rich he is. I suspect like Carr he spends as much time on the excuse.

I posted on another thread how Jim Davidson has either supported or used both their material. That's the problem with oh so clever comedians such as these and also (to some extent) the Pub Landlord character.

You can be ironic and clever as you like, but you will also attract an audience that like jokes about gypsies and the disabled.

I know those people. Comedians give them a free pass.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

.. and how rich he is. I suspect like Carr he spends as much time on the excuse.

I posted on another thread how Jim Davidson has either supported or used both their material. That's the problem with oh so clever comedians such as these and also (to some extent) the Pub Landlord character.

You can be ironic and clever as you like, but you will also attract an audience that like jokes about gypsies and the disabled.

I know those people. Comedians give them a free pass.

What about gypsies and electronic music? Asking for a . . .well, not a friend, really

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Gervais TV writing is excellent. Office was one of the best things ever and Extras and Afterlife were both very good.

His stand up can be really funny and clever at times, although the transphobic stuff wasn't either of those things. It was cliched and lazy. My main gripe with him though is that he spends far too much time explaining how clever he is and how his critics are wrong and stupid.

If I want middle aged white guys explaining to me how much cleverer they are than everyone else, I can come here and get it on tap for free.

The bit in your post that made me nod in agreement was the word 'lazy'. That is the disappointing thing about him.

Nobody likes a lazy footballer (in this day and age - Best in the 70s was a different and tolerable conundrum), so why tolerate a lazy comedian. Especially when being a smug git is part of the schtik? It's the comedy equivalent of Chris Sutton. Come on, Gervais, old son - you're better than that.