[Film] Ricky Gervais.

[Hugo Rune]

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.

Are we now utterly without guidance? How else to you explain the latest family board game?

https://youtu.be/VyWCXNnAN3A

 

[Acker79]

[tweet]1530881640611840000[/tweet]

 

[doogie004]

Watched it tonight pissed myself laughing .[emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stato]

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.

You may be referring to Maureen Lipman, a more than decent comedy actress in her day, but not much of an expert on stand up, or on politics. I'm not at all bothered by jokes. I'm quite comfortable with edgy humour, saw the likes of Sadowitz and Hicks live, loved the work of people like Norm McDonald, Patrice O'Neal, Gilbert Gottfried, Jim Jeffries. Happily laughed at Frankie Boyle, Jimmy Carr, etc.

My problem is not about jokes, its about fake culture wars narratives. Gervais, Chappelle, Jerry Seinfeld are all giving grist to the mill of those who would have us all believe that the younger generation have all gone mad and that freedoms are now restricted. In truth, nobody is being stopped from saying anything. To the contrary, there is now total saturation of media and infinite viewpoints being expressed across a worldwide communications network.

TV news and traditional print media have both lost a lot of power because of this and they rely on the kind of faux controversy to get the clicks necessary to keep themselves relevant. Everything is about money and the only thing that international business fears is consumer disapproval. Sponsors and networks are self regulating in fear of backlash and this is being reported as political power being wielded by a generation of politically correct youngsters who dictate who can and can''t work. There is evidence everywhere of this being a completely false narrative. If you sell, you'll work. The BBC was making so much off Top Gear, that they forgave countless Clarkson indiscretions and only finally sacked him when he actually assaulted a member of staff, more recently Spotify did nothing to curb the freedom of speech of Joe Rogan even when he was pedaling nonsense that could be a danger to public health.

James Acaster's bit hits the nail on the head: people with a great deal of media power are pretending that the power lies elsewhere because this serves their public image. When doing stand up, Frankie Howerd would always pick on a local authority figure to ridicule, Max Miller would look to the wings in the pretence that the powers that be would drag him off. Comedians throughout the ages have always acted the role of 'The Fool' in King Lear; being the low status slob who tells truth to power. We now live in a communication age where its not at all clear where cultural power lies. These comedians are very powerful voices, but cannot do their jobs if this is too apparent to their audiences. They need to act as if they are going to be in trouble for what they say. Its a difficult conundrum for the performer who is rich and famous, but whose act relies on being the everyman. Bo Burnham sums up the problem, as also experienced by faded jeans wearing millionaire singers in his 'Country Song'.

Some are responding by placing themselves in the position of the old person left behind by the speed of change in pervading cultural attitudes. This is very effective if they play to audiences who share the same concerns. However, ego can get in the way. Chappelle can't completely admit to being an old geezer who struggles with new attitudes because he still remembers when he was the compelling and relevant voice of black America and doesn't want to give that up, Gervais, like Jimmy Carr wants the laugh too much to reject jokes that have attitudes that, offstage, he doesn't share, Seinfeld wants to complain that college audiences are the problem, rather than admit that he is no longer at the cutting edge and be satisfied to play to massive older audiences who want the greatest hits to remind them of a time when they were the young vibrant voices.

Norm McDonald always got away with it because he always played the dumbest guy in the room. From that position you can admit to confusion about modernity. The problem is that these comedians want to have their cake and eat it, saying silly things about minorities because you are out of touch with the way younger people view the world, is not easily balanced with also wanting to make serious statements as a moral or political philosopher. The jokes are not the problem. The status of the comedians telling the jokes is the problem.

 

[Miami Seagull]

Watched the whole thing tonight. Thought it was excellent.

 

[BadFish]

You may be referring to Maureen Lipman, a more than decent comedy actress in her day, but not much of an expert on stand up, or on politics. I'm not at all bothered by jokes. I'm quite comfortable with edgy humour, saw the likes of Sadowitz and Hicks live, loved the work of people like Norm McDonald, Patrice O'Neal, Gilbert Gottfried, Jim Jeffries. Happily laughed at Frankie Boyle, Jimmy Carr, etc.

My problem is not about jokes, its about fake culture wars narratives. Gervais, Chappelle, Jerry Seinfeld are all giving grist to the mill of those who would have us all believe that the younger generation have all gone mad and that freedoms are now restricted. In truth, nobody is being stopped from saying anything. To the contrary, there is now total saturation of media and infinite viewpoints being expressed across a worldwide communications network.

TV news and traditional print media have both lost a lot of power because of this and they rely on the kind of faux controversy to get the clicks necessary to keep themselves relevant. Everything is about money and the only thing that international business fears is consumer disapproval. Sponsors and networks are self regulating in fear of backlash and this is being reported as political power being wielded by a generation of politically correct youngsters who dictate who can and can''t work. There is evidence everywhere of this being a completely false narrative. If you sell, you'll work. The BBC was making so much off Top Gear, that they forgave countless Clarkson indiscretions and only finally sacked him when he actually assaulted a member of staff, more recently Spotify did nothing to curb the freedom of speech of Joe Rogan even when he was pedaling nonsense that could be a danger to public health.

James Acaster's bit hits the nail on the head: people with a great deal of media power are pretending that the power lies elsewhere because this serves their public image. When doing stand up, Frankie Howerd would always pick on a local authority figure to ridicule, Max Miller would look to the wings in the pretence that the powers that be would drag him off. Comedians throughout the ages have always acted the role of 'The Fool' in King Lear; being the low status slob who tells truth to power. We now live in a communication age where its not at all clear where cultural power lies. These comedians are very powerful voices, but cannot do their jobs if this is too apparent to their audiences. They need to act as if they are going to be in trouble for what they say. Its a difficult conundrum for the performer who is rich and famous, but whose act relies on being the everyman. Bo Burnham sums up the problem, as also experienced by faded jeans wearing millionaire singers in his 'Country Song'.

Some are responding by placing themselves in the position of the old person left behind by the speed of change in pervading cultural attitudes. This is very effective if they play to audiences who share the same concerns. However, ego can get in the way. Chappelle can't completely admit to being an old geezer who struggles with new attitudes because he still remembers when he was the compelling and relevant voice of black America and doesn't want to give that up, Gervais, like Jimmy Carr wants the laugh too much to reject jokes that have attitudes that, offstage, he doesn't share, Seinfeld wants to complain that college audiences are the problem, rather than admit that he is no longer at the cutting edge and be satisfied to play to massive older audiences who want the greatest hits to remind them of a time when they were the young vibrant voices.

Norm McDonald always got away with it because he always played the dumbest guy in the room. From that position you can admit to confusion about modernity. The problem is that these comedians want to have their cake and eat it, saying silly things about minorities because you are out of touch with the way younger people view the world, is not easily balanced with also wanting to make serious statements as a moral or political philosopher. The jokes are not the problem. The status of the comedians telling the jokes is the problem.

Spot on. Well said.

 

[goldstone]

Watched the first 15 minutes of it last night. Best laugh I've had for a very very long time. He is such a clever, and funny, guy. Will watch the rest this evening.