Ricky Gervais has responded to a petition demanding Netflix remove a controversial joke from his new comedy special, calling out ‘faux’ outrage.
Ricky Gervais has responded to a petition demanding Netflix remove a controversial joke from his new comedy special, calling out ‘faux’ outrage.
I never said that there shouldn’t be any social consequences. He can be removed by Netflix, lose job offers, be boycotted - but suggesting he is pro-pedophilia is a particularly nasty, slanderous allegation. Being deliberately offensive or nasty in your joke telling routine doesn’t mean you endorse the topics you joke about actually happening.
You are free to think he is a dick for hid chosen themes of joking, but it doesn’t mean he endorses pedophilia.
And I have no problems with child rape being the subject of a joke. It is obviously a hard MA, and not for everyone - but then that is part of RG overall point.
But how would that be logical? Admitting that there should be social consequences means that you admit that there is a problem with his content, yet you say that it’s bad to say it? And if you mock victims of pedophilia, once again, you are supporting pedophilia. Whether you are, in your thoughts, liking pedos or not doesn’t matter as it doesn’t change your actions.
What point? From what I’ve seen, his point is to spread racist and discriminatory stereotypes, the pedo thing was just the culmination of the shit he said. Because I didn’t mention other particularly nasty things about his “jokes” such as normalising the “africans with aids” thing that serves no purpose, and is one millimetre away from the 40 years old “africans are animals who fuck monkeys” racist propaganda. What is his point? That instead of mocking people who are having power and influence (such as him) you should attack victims, discriminated people, and show them as inferior? I’m sorry but if RG has a point, then this point is very nazi-like. Making everything I said even more true, and making his “jokes” even more problematic.