deleted by creator
I just saw this posted on lemmy a while back. It’s so good. lol
For anyone who likes this, his entire show is brilliant and you can buy it for a fairly reasonable price directly from his homepage:
https://www.jamesacaster.com/cold-lasagne/
Honestly one of if not the best Stand-Up routine I’ve seen in the past ten years
If you’re the kind of person that thinks no comedy can be mean, you’re helping to destroy comedy
Just my opinion. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. Don’t hate those that understand centuries upon centuries of schadenfreude is what made us a funny species
deleted by creator
His reading comprehension is fine, the guy said
If you have to rile the audience to be funny, you’re not funny. <-- A declarative statement with no gray option
Whereas Mr_Blott is saying that sometimes, it is
The guys even right that a lot of this isn’t even new ideas. Mean or even dark humor has been around for centuries.
Thanks for having comprehension 😅
Actually if your reading comprehension was better you would understand that the other poster also has poor reading comprehension and would discount their support. Reading comprehension is when people agree with me.
I see what you did there. Bold move, as it’s risky.
If you have to rile the audience to be funny, you’re not funny.
But there is a “gray option” here. I read this as “you can rile up the audience and be funny, just not if that’s the only thing you do”, in context with the previous point that this sort of humour is overused and loosing its impact.
If the only way you can make pizza is by sticking a frozen one in your oven you can’t make pizza; if you choose to use a frozen pizza that doesn’t mean you can’t make pizza.
You’re conflating two subtly distinct concepts. Only being able to do something one way isn’t the same as choosing to do something one way. If your only option is to rile people up, you’re not funny. That’s what these comedians are complaining about; their one joke is to punch down, which is frowned upon.
That’s just a bad analogy. That’s more like if a comedian can only copy someone else’s jokes, they’re not funny. If you wanted a pizza analogy, it’d be more like if you can only make thick crust pizza, but can’t make any other types of pizza’s, you can’t make pizza.
Which is just not true. You just find an audience who enjoys being constantly given thick crust pizza.
Mean/dark humor isn’t an incorrect type of humor. It is a different type of humor. If someone is good at it then they just need to stick with that audience. Is it what you’d consider high class or in good taste? Maybe not, but it’s still their humor.
I mean it’s not like punching up is any harder than punching down. Just the audience of that comedian is more likely to not be in the group affected by it.
Convenient of you to completely omit and ignore his first sentence, which happened to contain the core message. That’s why you’re both being dinged for (lack of) reading comprehension.
Just trying to make this as stupid-simple as possible.
No? You are completely welcome to hate that kind of comedy. In fact that kind of comedy by it’s nature will have people who can’t handle it. But it’s acting like it’s some new terrible idea someone thought of recently instead of a long-standing form of comedy that just happened to hit a bad spot for some.
It’s basically re-contextualizing it as something that has no basis when it in fact should be a type of comedy that goes without saying at this point…
Like it wasn’t removed out of convenience it’s the core of nothing.
At worst you could argue he is trying to say that people actually think all comedy has to be mean…which would be stupid in it’s own right because he just argues the opposite extreme in his second sentence then…Black/White instead of any form of gray argument. Like I really hope we’re not saying that the extreme point is the core of his argument…
Truly even funnier after watching the video linked
These people aren’t riling up the audience. They’re riling up people the audience doesn’t like.
Also, I’m ok with comedy being “mean”, so long as the target deserves it and it’s delivered in a witty way. Too many “edgy” comedians are just recycling the same joke, which runs counter to the idea that comedy is the Subversion of Expectations.
Mean comedy and riling people up can be funny.
deleted by creator
Or they recognize them as what they are, jokes.
deleted by creator
You mean slapstick?
The humor that is funny mainly because you suspend disbelief and watch something else get hurt?
That type of comedy that practically dominated for several decades?
The key to a lot of humor regarding misfortune is that it either isn’t regarding you, hits a point that is true but not the core of who you are, or is far away enough that you can suspend disbelief.
In other words, yes, because they’re jokes
I mean you can literally just watch three stooges and people will laugh at someone getting punched in the face.
deleted by creator
Goddamn you people cannot be this thick.
I’d say the same thing to you honestly. You seem too stuck up for humor. You aim for extremes for everything.
I can have empathy for others, but not for you, who seems to purposely put yourself in situations to be offended.
edit: wait standup is also setup comedy…come on man. You’re literally writing situations for you to be offended in.
If you’re genuinely unsure whether punching someone is a joke then I don’t think you should be joking with people
deleted by creator
You this?
What constitutes a joke? If I punch you in the face then say, “hey it was just a joke” is it a joke?
I’d saying paying to go see a comedian who’s work you are familiar and comfortable with.
Does a mean statement hurt your body in the same physical way as a punch to the face? That’s a really stupid comparison.
deleted by creator
Why is someone who has experienced hardship or loss, going to a comedian who is known for mean/dark humor?
You can’t make humor that pleases everyone every time. That’s unrealistic.
We get it. You’re a victim. Shut up already.
Did you totally leave out a word or did you misconjugate?
You think that’s new?
Kevin Hart aside (I’ll let others talk about what they like or dislike about him) -
I don’t know how anyone thinks that the hollywood “elite” are comedy friendly. I don’t know any celebrities right now that can take a joke about themselves. Either lighthearted or a good ribbing, I just see every one of them being upset and pouty. Sure they’ll laugh at others, but to each one of them they’re untouchable when it comes to jokes.
Personally I liked the humor, for me it humanizes them and it’s like “Okay let’s ground this thing in some reality before we make you feel like you’re the most important people on the planet”, but of course god forbid they remember they’re just like us.
Eh, barely anyone watches these award shows anyway. It’s wealthy narcissism voting for other wealthy narcissists.
Having seen Kevin Hart live, I’m not surprised.
It was incredibly depressing that his openers (his “Solo cup boys”) made homophobic jokes. One in particular was about how the comedian would be disappointed if his son was gay because he couldn’t take him to the strip club with him.
Sorry that people aren’t receptive to shitty, bigoted jokes any more Kevin. Maybe you and Dave Chappelle can get together and make jokes about trans/gay people to empty audiences.
Or in terms that you’re more familiar with, "you ‘gon learn today!’
One in particular was about how the comedian would be disappointed if his son was gay because he couldn’t take him to the strip club with him.
The premise could have worked if he switched it around and said that he was going to have to go to gay strip club or Chippendale’s or something instead of being a complaint about not being able to go to his usual clubs. That would have made it supportive and accepting of his son while also highlighting his personal hangups.
The idea of going to a strip club is repulsive to me, going with my dad is even worse… Wtf kind of joke is that even
A joke about taking your adult children to a strip club is funny because of how weird it would be. Hart flubbed it by making his son’s sexuality the punchline.
The original comment was talking about the openers for Kevin Hart, not Kevin Hart himself. So the punchline shouldn’t have been made by Hart or about Hart’s son.
Oh damn, I must have mixed that up because of Hart’s bits about not wanting to have a gay son.
kevin hart was originally going to be in tropic thunder but he refused to play a gay character so he was dropped
And then he put on a dress.
Yep, I was equally disappointed with the execution.
If your humor is based on punching down then fuck off, life is shitty enough as it is for most people without having a multi millionaire laughing at them.
Punching down can be funny.
Uh ya might want to look up the term ‘hollywood elite’, what it refers to, then pick another phrase. ‘Overpaid egoists perpetually high on their own farts’ is a good one
It means Jews.
World dominating government manipulating elder protocol Jews at that!
Oh too bad their shows always sell out arenas. Perform to empty crowds? You people live in your heads.
Imagine if these guys were white….
I don’t have to imagine being white
I don’t get it, he should be a perfect host then right?
My only rebuttal to this, is the whitehouse correspondance dinner. That’s the whole point of comedy.
Jeselnik said something to this point when he mentioned the Boston marathon bombing. What’s funny about the bombing, nothing. But that’s why there comedians who can find humor in the darkest of places.
Pretty sure Seth Myers caused Trump to run for President tho. Or maybe it was his opening act
I would say Jon Stewart was more influential for Trump running for president. Stewart had him on the Daily Show multiple times trying to lampoon Trump for being a birth certificate denyer towards Obama. Steward continually egged him on, well if you can do better why don’t you run for president?
the less I hear about or see kevin hart, the better. Feel free to remove yourself from more media, kevin.
Same. He’s become the token “loud and safe black guy” in random white people movies.
Why’s that?
Looking around it looks like he made some homophobic jokes in the past.
At, that’s good. Always appreciate it when an actor I dislike does something unacceptable so my hatred can finally be justified to everyone else.
I’m not really understanding the article. Does it mention he was asked to host this year and declined? It almost seems like he’s putting it out there because
A. He’s trying to build controversy so that he’s asked and can either publicly decline or “relunctantly” accept and say that he only did it under the condition that he could say whatever he wanted.
Or B. He asked and they turned him down so he’s saying he never wanted to anyway.
It all sounds fake. He has all the connections he needs to be able to host.
No loss here. Take your jokes and go home. Soooooooo many others who would love the chance.
deleted by creator
Did you think they meant themselves?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yes.
Billy Crystal hosted a bunch of times in the 90’s and was well received because his humor wasn’t edgy, just light and fun.
Yeah, I don’t understand why every award show needs to be a roast now.
Becasue their viewership has cratered in the past few decades. They need the edgy MC to get people to watch.
ok, and?
Why? Since they are such a joke…
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. People are too easily offended nowadays.
How arrogant do you have to be that you feel that everyone has to only do / say things that don’t offend you?
Dark comedy still exists, but the lazy comedy stylings of my 50 yo homophobe, racist uncle seems to be out of fashion. These old guard stand up comics aren’t funny anymore and no one is obligated to buy tickets to their shows.
“The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego one’s own.” -The Satanic Temple’s Fourth Tenet
However. I also believe the right to be offended is one of the freedoms we all have. There’s a lot of discussion over what this tenet truly means. I believe it should work hand-in-hand with the other tenets, which include “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone,” “one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason,” and “every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.”
I take it to mean that yes, you do have the right to offend, but also to be offended when someone violated your own personal freedoms. To say something that challenges someone’s understanding of the world may offend them, but that doesn’t mean its wrong. However, the use of the freedom to offend should be used sparingly, and with caution.
But if we start telling people they’re not allowed to say things that are offensive to us, then that same logic can turn back on us later when we say something offensive to them. Pretty soon, nobody will be allowed to say anything. People should be free to express their opinions, so long as they abide by the rest of the tenets, in my opinion.
But, that doesn’t mean we need to give people who are out to offend others bigger platforms to spread their messages. We don’t even have to listen to them.
I’m reminded of the famous Voltaire quote, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
This is a complex topic, and I’m worried I’m not making my message clear enough here. Let me try to boil it down to a more direct response.
I do not agree that people are “too easily offended nowadays,” but I do agree that people have the right to say things that might offend. I think people have the right to be offended about whatever they want. But they do not have the right to impose their own beliefs on others. If you want to say something offensive that I don’t agree with, knock yourself out. But if you want to try prohibit me from saying something offensive to you, you can fuck right off.
It’s a fine line. Yes, you have the right to offend others, but not the right to control them.
I know, right? You never see anything like this in the mainstream any more:
What you’re seeing is that people no longer feel the need to keep their mouth shut when they don’t like the joke. In previous generations, they had no platform and, in some cases, their physical safety was at risk. Social media has given them a voice and community where they can share their opinion.
At the same time, corporations only give a shit about profits, not art. They’ll chase whatever makes them more money. If they don’t think that people will watch something, they won’t fund it.
Combine those and you have folks willing and able to tell corporations they won’t buy something they don’t like. But, of course, that can be outweighed by actual purchases. Netflix keeps shoveling money at Chappelle; people must be keeping their subscriptions to watch him. Substack recently announced they’ll host and monetize Nazi newsletters. J.K. Rowling continues to be Andrew Tate for women and pulls huge residual checks.
So if you want more offensive things in the world, seek it out and pay for it. Corporations will churn it out if there is demand. Just don’t expect people to only judge you quietly; they have tools to be loud now.
deleted by creator
Yup, but then I just don’t consume that stuff
deleted by creator
They should realise that if it offends them, then stop watching or consuming. Stop purposely misinterpreting what I say.
deleted by creator
What’s there to explain? Just don’t consume things that offend you. Simple enough, I’d think.
