General Entertainment What the hell is wrong with comedians right now?

[Greatoneshere]

8 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I am curious as to why you believe this. It feels like the sort of thing that has caught on in internet chatter about comedy in the last 10 years, but I haven’t seen anybody actually articulate why a joke can’t be funny (the actual job of a comedian!) if you are “punching down”.

 

Because the culture has thankfully changed. Making dead baby jokes, rape jokes, incest jokes, pedophile jokes, I believe everything is on the table in comedy, truly. But, it's the way the joke is presented. If the punchline of your joke, or to get to your punchline, you have to directly make fun of women, or disabled people, or whatever to get there, at their expense (that's key), not only is your joke lazy, but it's often not funny and you potentially spread ignorance to your audience.

 

For instance, It's Always Sunny straddles this line very well. The joke at the end of the day is always about the group's ignorance, not the poor person/gay person/whoever is involved in the plot. Or, as I mentioned in my first post, stand-up comedian Anthony Jeselnik does similar things. He'll make you think he's saying the worst things on Earth, but his punchline always brings it back to him being stupid or taking the joke so far it's clear he doesn't think/believe what he's saying. By comparison, when Chappelle goes on and on about having a problem reconciling himself with trans people and just goes on and on, it just feels like distaste for trans people, I didn't get any joke to it.

 

It's like Bill Burr, recently on a Conan podcast, mentioned that he uses humor to cope since he isn't mature enough to always be in an emotional moment with his wife. So one time they watched the news and saw a story about a man beating his wife up really badly. His wife was sad about the news but because he wasn't mature enough to be sad with her, he said he laughed and asked: "what do you think the last thing she said to him was?" Which made me laugh hard. It's funny not because he's advocating that there's some wiggle room for a man to be justified in hitting a woman, the joke is funny because he clearly can't deal with how serious the situation is and broke it with a really funny line which indicates more his immaturity and ignorance (funny) than being chill with men beating women and making fun of that (not funny). It's a fine line and very contextual, but I think most people know it when they see it. I think at least a segment of people are kind of done with low hanging fruit jokes that have in their way perpetuated negative things about minority groups that we need to no longer go to the well to.

 

 

[BloodyHell]

38 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

The problem isn't that they still are selling out stadiums, they are, but that they aren't funny anymore whenever they get on a soapbox and they are mostly riding on their reputation and good will from their earlier work. Doesn't mean they aren't as funny as they used to be, but whining about cancel culture when you clearly aren't being cancelled since you're selling out stadiums is pretty disingenuous. It's not a good look and makes me like the comedian less, that's for sure.

 

And making jokes that punch down is just a bad thing to do. It's why It's Always Sunny works and why Chappelle's rant about being a TERF 

 

I certainly don’t think that bit was Dave’s best work, but it got some chuckles. Point is, the outrage at him telling it is just going to create more of it, because from the outside, the outrage is worth making fun of.  

But to say comedy that punches down doesn’t work is just wrong. Insult comics punched down forever, as long as it’s not the whole act, it’s fine. 

 

Theres definitely a lot of hypocrisy on both sides, but imo, people trying to censor others art,even when they fail, are worst than those making fun of their attempts to silence them. They aren’t canceled, per we, but the attempt was certainly made.

so that group can be done with what you call low hanging fruit jokes, but I’ve seen Hannah Gadsby and other progressive comedians, you’re welcome to give your money to them. Just stop getting mad that the rest of us don’t feel the same way. And I don’t mean you specifically, I mean the Resetera/twitter echo chamber who absolutely want to silence certain comedians and artists who don’t conform.

[Greatoneshere]

15 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

 

I certainly don’t think that bit was Dave’s best work, but it got some chuckles. Point is, the outrage at him telling it is just going to create more of it, because from the outside, the outrage is worth making fun of.  

But to say comedy that punches down doesn’t work is just wrong. Insult comics punched down forever, as long as it’s not the whole act, it’s fine. 

 

Theres definitely a lot of hypocrisy on both sides, but imo, people trying to censor others art,even when they fail, are worst than those making fun of their attempts to silence them. They aren’t canceled, per we, but the attempt was certainly made.

so that group can be done with what you call low hanging fruit jokes, but I’ve seen Hannah Gadsby and other progressive comedians, you’re welcome to give your money to them. Just stop getting mad that the rest of us don’t feel the same way. And I don’t mean you specifically, I mean the Resetera/twitter echo chamber who absolutely want to silence certain comedians and artists who don’t conform.

 

No one is trying to censor anyone though. Groups of people stating publicly on social media: "we don't like this person anymore/never did" is not censoring anyone. If anyone got chuckles out of his very serious TERF talk, I'd argue they are very likely anti-trans, and that's my point.

 

Insult comics don't punch down. Bad ones do. Again, as I explained to sblfilms, it's about context (see my previous post). Since I elaborated on it there, lemme know what you think, but no, punching down never works. A joke can be mean, that's not the same thing as punching down. And you say: "outrage is just going to create more outrage that then others make fun of". Well, what's your solution? Just let anyone run roughshod over other groups in very public forums and public platforms? Outrage is the start of the process.

 

I haven't met this "twitter echo chamber" that wants to "silence" certain comedians. But yeah, if someone is spewing hate and using "comedy" as a platform, trying to ice them out by making their hate and bigotry public is absolutely fair game. There's a difference between not conforming and being a hate monger. And did you just try to Charlottesville, VA "both sides" this debate? How is one side wanting to stop hate spewing by the other side hypocritical? Or that the hypocrisy is equal on both sides?

[Ghost_MH]

I can't wait for the day Musk truly fucks it up and everyone bails on Twitter. That day couldn't come sooner.

 

There is no mass outrage. Nobody is being cancelled. Any comedian that utters the word "cancelled" is any non-sarcastic tone deserves an eye roll so exaggerated Australia looks right side up.

 

For years, journalist and blog types have scoured Twitter for asinine takes on everything from mayonnaise to cancel culture just to make headlines for the 24/7 news grind. A handful of people being upset on Twitter isn't cancel culture. I'm sure you can find enough people on these forums right here that disagree with my take that hotdogs are sandwiches. Oh no, I guess I'm cancelled now. Are hotdogs next?

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, BloodyHell said:

 

 

it’s kind of like the Hogwarts Legacy and the games press right now. They really want to destroy this game, but it’s popularity won’t let them. The whole of gaming “journalism” has a single mind, and it’s been twisted and locked in the bowels of Resetera. 

 

I have no idea what any of this means! 😅 

 

Probably a good thing 

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Because the culture has thankfully changed. Making dead baby jokes, rape jokes, incest jokes, pedophile jokes, I believe everything is on the table in comedy, truly. But, it's the way the joke is presented. If the punchline of your joke, or to get to your punchline, you have to directly make fun of women, or disabled people, or whatever to get there, at their expense (that's key), not only is your joke lazy, but it's often not funny and you potentially spread ignorance to your audience.

 

For instance, It's Always Sunny straddles this line very well. The joke at the end of the day is always about the group's ignorance, not the poor person/gay person/whoever is involved in the plot. Or, as I mentioned in my first post, stand-up comedian Anthony Jeselnik does similar things. He'll make you think he's saying the worst things on Earth, but his punchline always brings it back to him being stupid or taking the joke so far it's clear he doesn't think/believe what he's saying. By comparison, when Chappelle goes on and on about having a problem reconciling himself with trans people and just goes on and on, it just feels like distaste for trans people, I didn't get any joke to it.

 

It's like Bill Burr, recently on a Conan podcast, mentioned that he uses humor to cope since he isn't mature enough to always be in an emotional moment with his wife. So one time they watched the news and saw a story about a man beating his wife up really badly. His wife was sad about the news but because he wasn't mature enough to be sad with her, he said he laughed and asked: "what do you think the last thing she said to him was?" Which made me laugh hard. It's funny not because he's advocating that there's some wiggle room for a man to be justified in hitting a woman, the joke is funny because he clearly can't deal with how serious the situation is and broke it with a really funny line which indicates more his immaturity and ignorance (funny) than being chill with men beating women and making fun of that (not funny). It's a fine line and very contextual, but I think most people know it when they see it. I think at least a segment of people are kind of done with low hanging fruit jokes that have in their way perpetuated negative things about minority groups that we need to no longer go to the well to.

 

 

 

All this, other comics are just coming off as cynical. What really got me is Maniscalco because he seemed really bitter on his recent standup, just talking shit on his wife relentlessly and it just seemed like an old man who can't cope. Which is too bad because I feel all his other standup was hilarious and insightful. Even silly bits like the Chipotle line. 

[SuperSpreader]

😅

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

13 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

 

All this, other comics are just coming off as cynical. What really got me is Maniscalco because he seemed really bitter on his recent standup, just talking shit on his wife relentlessly and it just seemed like an old man who can't cope. Which is too bad because I feel all his other standup was hilarious and insightful. Even silly bits like the Chipotle line. 

 

Exactly. I watched all of Chappelle's Netflix specials and liked them. I even liked the one with the TERF rant until the rant. I'm always down for good jokes, but there is a sea change in the comedy world, and one I'm thankful is happening. Lazy jokes that make fun at the expense of minority groups is not cool, not funny, and there are many other jokes one can tell. Does that mean minority groups are off the table? Of course not. But jokes at the expense of the minority group (aka punching down), is just unnecessary and not funny.

[stepee]

If too much of the public doesn’t like your material then write better material because you are obviously not connecting with the pulse of modern society. If your point is to alienate people and provide content that upsets them, then you don’t get to complain when that happens. shrug 

[skillzdadirecta]

2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

The problem isn't that they still are selling out stadiums, they are, but that they aren't funny anymore whenever they get on a soapbox and they are mostly riding on their reputation and good will from their earlier work. Doesn't mean they aren't as funny as they used to be, but whining about cancel culture when you clearly aren't being cancelled since you're selling out stadiums is pretty disingenuous. It's not a good look and makes me like the comedian less, that's for sure.

 

And making jokes that punch down is just a bad thing to do. It's why It's Always Sunny works and why Chappelle's rant about being a TERF doesn't.

I don't care what anybody says, Dave is still funny when he choses to be. He was funny as hell on SNL a couple of weeks ago... felt like a return to form... and at least one of his recent Netflix specials was funny too. Whether certain folks think these guys are still funny or not is a matter of personal taste. Half the comedians you guys name in these topics I either never heard of or when I DO go check out some of the clips that are posted, I find to be as a funny disertation on ecnomics policies of 18th century Europe (ie: Not Very) but comedy is subjective, right?

 

Also isn't all comedy "punching down" to an extent? When people do bits about "rednecks" or "poor what trash" or "ghetto folks da hood" isn't that punching down? This si a weird distinction that you guys seem to take as some kind of absolute rule when most comics I know have no idea wtf that "rule" even means.

[skillzdadirecta]

54 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

 

I have no idea what any of this means! 😅 

 

Probably a good thing 

Me neither... had no idea there was a concerted effort to "cancel" this game... is this a right wing media, Fox news thing?

[SuperSpreader]

🤷‍♂️ 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

This entire discussion makes me very glad that my sense of humor died a long time ago.

 

The only group of people that contribute less to society than than comedians are editorialists.

[stepee]

9 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Me neither... had no idea there was a concerted effort to "cancel" this game... is this a right wing media, Fox news thing?

 

Some people on the internet have said they won’t buy the game due to some of the proceeds benefiting an actively transphobic person. This counts as canceling the game because damnit you will consume what you are told to consume mother fucker.

[Greatoneshere]

24 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I don't care what anybody says, Dave is still funny when he choses to be. He was funny as hell on SNL a couple of weeks ago... felt like a return to form... and at least one of his recent Netflix specials was funny too. Whether certain folks think these guys are still funny or not is a matter of personal taste. Half the comedians you guys name in these topics I either never heard of or when I DO go check out some of the clips that are posted, I find to be as a funny disertation on ecnomics policies of 18th century Europe (ie: Not Very) but comedy is subjective, right?

 

Also isn't all comedy "punching down" to an extent? When people do bits about "rednecks" or "poor what trash" or "ghetto folks da hood" isn't that punching down? This si a weird distinction that you guys seem to take as some kind of absolute rule when most comics I know have no idea wtf that "rule" even means.

 

I think you need to read all of my posts in this thread - I address what I mean by punching down, and it's not what you describe at least (I could still be wrong but lemme know what you think). As I said, a lot of jokes can be mean, etc.; it's about whether the joke is at the expense of the entire minority group. I said in a previous post in this thread I liked all of Chappelle's recent stuff, even his TERF special, minus the TERF rant. Are people reading my posts? I've had to tell @stepee, @BloodyHell, and now you to please read all of my posts before responding to just one of them, no biggie just hoping people are reading everything I write.  

 

There is also nothing about Bo Burnham, Taylor Tomlinson, or Anthony Jeselnik (all comedians who don't "punch down" with their jokes) who aren't elitist intellectual comedians. I mean, nothing about the clip below is a "funny dissertation on economic policies of 18th century Europe"; my Bill Burr clip earlier was literally about how does one watch the news and make dark jokes.
 

 

Notice that despite the salacious nature of some of her jokes, it all comes back to making fun of herself or the bad behavior of others. It's not about mocking a disabled kid or a trans person or whatever.

[stepee]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I think you need to read all of my posts in this thread - I address what I mean by punching down, and it's not what you describe at least (I could still be wrong but lemme know what you think). As I said, a lot of jokes can be mean, etc.; it's about whether the joke is at the expense of the entire minority group. I said in a previous post in this thread I liked all of Chappelle's recent stuff, even his TERF special, minus the TERF rant. Are people reading my posts? I've had to tell @stepee, @BloodyHell, and now you to please read all of my posts before responding to just one of them, no biggie just hoping people are reading everything I write.  

 

Mine was just an honest skipped over the line  flub!

[Greatoneshere]

5 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

Mine was just an honest skipped over the line  flub!

 

Honestly was just worried my posts were getting glitched in the system more than anything.  

[TheLeon]

14 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Also isn't all comedy "punching down" to an extent? When people do bits about "rednecks" or "poor what trash" or "ghetto folks da hood" isn't that punching down? This si a weird distinction that you guys seem to take as some kind of absolute rule when most comics I know have no idea wtf that "rule" even means.

I’ve really only heard the “punching up/down” rule applied to people in the same field. I don’t watch a lot of standup these days, but I listen to a lot of comedy podcasts. A lot of those podcasts were started by people with little to no name recognition, and had to work hard to develop their audiences from scratch, back when podcasting was a new concept to most people 10+ years ago. And so they’re bitter when established famous people can just start a podcast and instantly have 100 times their audience. They can mock these shows and their hosts, because they’re the little guy “punching up” at people far more successful than them. But it would be in poor taste for Conan O’Brien, for example, to take time in his show to mock a podcast that most of his audience has never heard of. It’s just bullying at that point. 
 

That same idea applies to comedians easily enough when talking about other comedians, but when talking about groups of people, it starts to lose its meaning pretty quickly imo. That becomes sort of a different topic. 

[stepee]

2 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Honestly was just worried my posts were getting glitched in the system more than anything.  

 

no no they are coming through and you are doing a good job expressing my pov so I don’t have to

[Keyser_Soze]

50 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Half the comedians you guys name in these topics I either never heard of or when I DO go check out some of the clips that are posted, I find to be as a funny disertation on ecnomics policies of 18th century Europe (ie: Not Very) but comedy is subjective, right?

 

@SuperSpreader posted good ones.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, TheLeon said:

That same idea applies to comedians easily enough when talking about other comedians, but when talking about groups of people, it starts to lose its meaning pretty quickly imo. That becomes sort of a different topic. 

Which is kind of my understanding when talking about "punching down"... It wouldn't be cool for a person in a clear postition of power to use that position to bully "the little guy"... I've heard stories about Kanye for example treating people that work for him as well as people who work in the service industry really poorly... but comedians are different. They're almost ALWAYS "punching down" as I understand the term to mean because of the simple fact that they have a mic and the spotlight and the dublect of whatever joke they're telling doesn't. We've all been to comedy shows where the comic will start randomly roasting folks in the audience right? Isn't THAT "punching down"? And if the subject of said roasting tries to respond by heckling that just fuels the comic more. "Punching down" is a part of comedy and it's up to the consumer whether or not they support a certain comic's humor or not. Calling for a comic or satirist to be canceled because you don't like their material is a silly and a waste of time as a comic expecting everyone to like their shit and give them a pass for telling an unfunny and unecessarily hurtful joke in my opinion 

[skillzdadirecta]

55 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

@SuperSpreader posted good ones.

Did he? I'll have to check them out... to be honest I find MOST modern comics to be self important and unfunny especially stand ups. I'm more of a fan of sketch comedy and satirists personally.

[Guest]

I think the issue I have with the “don’t punch down” as articulated by Great is that it seems as though it is just as subjective as whether a joke is funny or not itself. I can understand more the concept of a joke being in poor taste due to various social inequities between this group or that group, but obviously many people enjoy jokes that are in terribly poor taste  so I feel like we are back to square one of “was it funny?”  

 

I’m am also always very suspicious of people telling Black men in American what is OK to say or not say. Lotta bad history there  

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

There is also nothing about Bo Burnham, Taylor Tomlinson, or Anthony Jeselnik (all comedians who don't "punch down" with their jokes) who aren't elitist intellectual comedians. I mean, nothing about the clip below is a "funny dissertation on economic policies of 18th century Europe"; my Bill Burr clip earlier was literally about how does one watch the news and make dark jokes.

I guess it all comes down to a matter of taste. I like the South Park guys because they are satirsts but they DEFINITELY "punch down" according to your definition. Literally NOTHING is off limits with them and when they land, the land. When they don't they don't but they don't hold back on anyone and that's fine, it's comedy. It's ok to like them and their humor or NOT like them and their humor.

 

I watched the clip of the lady you posted and she definitely had a couple of funny lines in there but she's not my cup of tea to be honest. I wouldn't boo her off the stage or anything if I was at  comedy club and she was in the line up that night, but I also wouldn't pay money to see her or anything. It's all subjective... and cultural. There's comics that I like that I KNOW 90% of this board wouldn't like because they are dealing with material that most of you guys just wouldn't get. That's fine too... everything ain't for everybody as a good friend of mine likes to say.

 

I think a lot of folks these days think that if something doesn't appeal to THEM specifically it's somehow not good or invalid and that just isn't the case. I don't even want to come off like I'm defending comics because I personally think they are some of the most delusional, entitled and self important people in show business. I just think this whole "issue" is overblown because one of comedy's main functions is to offend by pushing against cultural norms. People shouldn't be surprised when comedians, especially ones whose whole personas are built on being "edgy" and "offensive" are in fact trying to be edgy and offensive. The bigger crime is when they make those attempts and they just aren't funny. 

[Greatoneshere]

45 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I guess it all comes down to a matter of taste. I like the South Park guys because they are satirsts but they DEFINITELY "punch down" according to your definition. Literally NOTHING is off limits with them and when they land, the land. When they don't they don't but they don't hold back on anyone and that's fine, it's comedy. It's ok to like them and their humor or NOT like them and their humor.

 

I watched the clip of the lady you posted and she definitely had a couple of funny lines in there but she's not my cup of tea to be honest. I wouldn't boo her off the stage or anything if I was at  comedy club and she was in the line up that night, but I also wouldn't pay money to see her or anything. It's all subjective... and cultural. There's comics that I like that I KNOW 90% of this board wouldn't like because they are dealing with material that most of you guys just wouldn't get. That's fine too... everything ain't for everybody as a good friend of mine likes to say.

 

I think a lot of folks these days think that if something doesn't appeal to THEM specifically it's somehow not good or invalid and that just isn't the case. I don't even want to come off like I'm defending comics because I personally think they are some of the most delusional, entitled and self important people in show business. I just think this whole "issue" is overblown because one of comedy's main functions is to offend by pushing against cultural norms. People shouldn't be surprised when comedians, especially ones whose whole personas are built on being "edgy" and "offensive" are in fact trying to be edgy and offensive. The bigger crime is when they make those attempts and they just aren't funny. 

 

I don't think South Park punches down at all. It's making fun of the ignorance of the characters, not the things it makes fun of (at least to me). Again, context is everything. It's Always Sunny is as aggressive as South Park but in live action and it never punches down. I do not believe the jokes in South Park, for the majority of it, are trying to spread ignorant messages in their comedy. It's the fine line between a joke being more funny than harmful vs. a joke that is more harmful than funny. If it's more funny than harmful, I say go for it. If it's the other way around, I wouldn't go for it.

 

I think what's getting lost here is that comedy can be harmful. That's the issue here. Famous older comedians are complaining that some things are now "off limits" so they feel "cancelled" when they go "off limits" and people don't like it. They can say what they want, but the culture and society can say: "we don't like this" and not support it and that's fair game. If enough people don't like your "off limits" jokes that you see your star start to fall or people criticize your views or jokes, that's fair game. A comedian can do whatever they want . . . just as the audience can do what they want in response.

 

But jokes can be harmful and I see nothing wrong with a society evolving to finally say: "hey, don't say this joke, with these terms, like this". It's not even hard, plenty of comedy is still "allowed" and is funny. Here's a great, extreme example of a harmful "joke": 

 

 

A lot of people view Donald Trump as a pseudo-stand up comedian and people would go to his rallies for this reason, to be entertained. He blatantly mocks a disabled report and you can hear claps and laughs in the crowd. Again, he can say whatever he wants, and the audience can react however they want, but is this funny? Is this a joke? Are these jokes we want to be making? Do we want to encourage groups of people who may not understand the difference (i.e. most people) that this is a joke? But is it joke? I think Trump is making fun of an entire group he dislikes. It's not funny, even if he and some people think it is. Is this potentially spreading hate and ignorance to a point it could reach stochastic terrorism if repeated consistently enough? Maybe. This is the "cancel culture" distinction @SuperSpreader has been saying some comedians are complaining about on stage. That's what I'm addressing. And I still don't think people understand what "punching down" means. It's about who is it we're ultimately laughing at? And sure, are there jokes we laugh at we know we shouldn't laugh at? Sure, but again, it's about how far it's being taken, in what spirit it is being said and in what spirit is the joke being received, etc. Trump is just attacking a group using an individual as an example. So again, there are limits, at least to me, and a growing segment of millenials and gen z'ers demanding better is only a good thing to me. It forces your jokes to be more creative anyway. Again, there is a fine line between comedy intending to offend and comedy that is just spreading ignorance and hate by wrapping it up in "jokes" to get away with it. Dave Chappelle normally = offending but super funny. Chappelle when on trans stuff = hateful and ignorant, and no jokes really in there. Though these days it seems Chappelle also hates the poors too.

[Greatoneshere]

Since no one seems to know Anthony Jeselnik, browse through this video for those curious - mentions blind people, fucking his brother, all kinds of things, yet hilarious (unlike Trump, as an example). Again, from his intent and tone you can tell he's not attacking anyone really.

 

 

[SuperSpreader]

2 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

This entire discussion makes me very glad that my sense of humor died a long time ago.

 

The only group of people that contribute less to society than than comedians are editorialists.

What about mimes?

 

[SuperSpreader]

56 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Did he? I'll have to check them out... to be honest I find MOST modern comics to be self important and unfunny especially stand ups. I'm more of a fan of sketch comedy and satirists personally.

 

So you don't even like stand-up 

 

More of a bugs bunny kinda guy 

 

 😅

[skillzdadirecta]

25 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

 

So you don't even like stand-up 

 

More of a bugs bunny kinda guy 

 

 😅

I like GOOD stand up. My definition of good is specific to me though... and yes I am and have ALWAYS been a Bugs Bunny guy.

 

45 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

I don't think South Park punches down at all. It's making fun of the ignorance of the characters, not the things it makes fun of (at least to me).

 

See this is the whole point. To YOU South Park doesn't punch down, but to others, specifically some black people, catholics, muslims, homesexuals, religious people, democrats, republicans, disabled people and a whole host of other people they have offended over the years, THEY ARE punching down. They are two white guys from small town America taking a piss out of everyone and yes, they are satirists and yes the target pretty much everyone equally, they are not everyone's cup of tea and not everyone finds them funny or harmless. I personally know a BUNCH of Black people and Muslims who don't fuck with South Park for jokes they found unfunny and offensive and that's their right. They're aren't wrong, but neither are you and I for not being offended. That's my point. There are no "objective comedy rules" at play that comedians are forced to follow besides BE FUNNY. That's it. Whomever finds a specific comedian offensive or not is entirely within their right to not support said comedian. 

I can't comment on It's always Sunny because I've never watched it.

 

 

EDIT: Also why is Donald Trump in a thread about stand up comedy? Whether folks view him as a comic or not, he isn't one and never has been. He's COMPLETELY irrelevant to this conversation in my opinion.

[Greatoneshere]

23 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

EDIT: Also why is Donald Trump in a thread about stand up comedy? Whether folks view him as a comic or not, he isn't one and never has been. He's COMPLETELY irrelevant to this conversation in my opinion.

 

I explained he's an extreme example of the point. People find him funny, think he's making jokes, that's the extent I need to use him to make the point. If your point is the left doesn't understand all comedy either (like you are saying some think South Park punches down) that isn't what this thread is about. It's about why many (older) comedians are whining about cancel culture, and I think I've explained why adequately. You seem to want a conversation about how comedy in general is subjective so all jokes are on the table whether they are harmful (which is what I mean by "punching down") or not. If your point is: "that's hard to determine" that's an obvious point to make. Comedy by nature is subjective. That doesn't mean all comedy is created equally and thus should all be equally allowed to be forced to be accepted by the population at large. Comedy is determined by intersubjectivity. I feel like you're having a conversation with yourself. Are you reading my posts? I've said numerous times audiences, culture, and society determine what comedy is "allowed" and not "allowed" which is inherently not objective. At no point did I say there are objective comedy rules at play. All my posts in fact have been about how it is relative, and older comedians haven't kept up and are complaining about the sea change. I said sea change earlier which implies a lack of objectivity in this area. And again, this isn't what the OP was about either. All I'm saying otherwise is that harmful jokes will get you "cancelled" with some audiences and those sorts of jokes that are harmful, that punch down as it were, should be derided for what they usually clearly are. 

 

Intersubjectivity - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

To say because there are no objective comedy rules at play means "anything goes" even if it can be harmful doesn't make sense to me. There are no "moral objective rules" in play at life but we understand (hopefully) what is harmful to others so we don't do it and what isn't harmful to others so we do get to do it. If large enough swaths of minority groups of people are finding a number of jokes in South Park offensive or hurtful (again, this is subjective, how big are the groups, etc.?) it's worth taking into consideration at least, I think. I think if I find something funny initially and then a whole minority group comes to me and goes: "we don't like that, it hurts us" I may re-think why I found it funny and change/grow up/evolve.

[Guest]

Great, the problem I keep coming back to with your position is that the entire thing is wholly subjective, but you are approaching it as though harm vs humor can be measured and quantified. Our wives could watch the same male comedian making jokes about women and one find it hilarious and the other harmful. Who is right? Does the comedian change their approach because some people, no matter how small that group might be, found it harmful?

 

And this actually goes directly to the original post. Some people clearly find the whining about cancel culture funny! The audiences who grew up with the guys who have been on the scene for 20+ years are mostly older themselves. They think dumping on young people and their naive beliefs is hilarious. Yeah, culture will eventually completely pass them by. There is a good reason most stand up comics don’t stay relevant past 50 or so  

 

Anyway, have the last word on this and we can probably put the topic to bed for now

[TheLeon]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Which is kind of my understanding when talking about "punching down"... It wouldn't be cool for a person in a clear postition of power to use that position to bully "the little guy"... I've heard stories about Kanye for example treating people that work for him as well as people who work in the service industry really poorly... but comedians are different. They're almost ALWAYS "punching down" as I understand the term to mean because of the simple fact that they have a mic and the spotlight and the dublect of whatever joke they're telling doesn't. We've all been to comedy shows where the comic will start randomly roasting folks in the audience right? Isn't THAT "punching down"? And if the subject of said roasting tries to respond by heckling that just fuels the comic more. "Punching down" is a part of comedy and it's up to the consumer whether or not they support a certain comic's humor or not. Calling for a comic or satirist to be canceled because you don't like their material is a silly and a waste of time as a comic expecting everyone to like their shit and give them a pass for telling an unfunny and unecessarily hurtful joke in my opinion 

 

57 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I think the issue I have with the “don’t punch down” as articulated by Great is that it seems as though it is just as subjective as whether a joke is funny or not itself. I can understand more the concept of a joke being in poor taste due to various social inequities between this group or that group, but obviously many people enjoy jokes that are in terribly poor taste  so I feel like we are back to square one of “was it funny?”  

 

I’m am also always very suspicious of people telling Black men in American what is OK to say or not say. Lotta bad history there  

And this is all why I don't think punching up/down is a great way to frame what we're talking about here. If the question is "what are comedians allowed to makes jokes about?", I think we're pretty much all in agreement: everything. Nothing should be off limits entirely. But it helps if you're actually making jokes, not just ranting/insulting.

 

As for people calling for comedians to be "cancelled" for jokes/comments that they don't like, I'm guessing most of them aren't exactly fans of comedy to begin with and nobody should really be paying attention to them.    I think most rational people adopt a simple "listen or don't listen" mentality and move on with their lives. This is why (going back to the OP) comedians complaining about "cancel culture" is dumb. Yeah, sure, you can't makes jokes anymore because everyone is too "PC". Boo hoo, nobody is actually stopping you from saying what you want. Some people will complain about you on the internet, big deal. 

[Greatoneshere]

29 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Great, the problem I keep coming back to with your position is that the entire thing is wholly subjective, but you are approaching it as though harm vs humor can be measured and quantified. Our wives could watch the same male comedian making jokes about women and one find it hilarious and the other harmful. Who is right? Does the comedian change their approach because some people, no matter how small that group might be, found it harmful?

 

And this actually goes directly to the original post. Some people clearly find the whining about cancel culture funny! The audiences who grew up with the guys who have been on the scene for 20+ years are mostly older themselves. They think dumping on young people and their naive beliefs is hilarious. Yeah, culture will eventually completely pass them by. There is a good reason most stand up comics don’t stay relevant past 50 or so  

 

Anyway, have the last word on this and we can probably put the topic to bed for now

 

Well that's my entire point - that the understanding is intersubjective. That's the only extent it can be "quantified" or "measured" - it's inherently going to be an abstract understanding that isn't some hard rule, so I don't mean to imply it's clear cut. I think we agree that all comedy is allowed, I'm just saying a certain kind of joke isn't funny to a lot of people in current society, particularly among millenials and gen z'ers (who aren't pro-alt right MAGA chud humor) and they're making their voices known on social media and their wallets. I was simply explaining to the OP the reasons for this shift and why. I like the shift and agree with it, no doubt, but I'm simply explaining why these groups are making themselves known. It's because they see the jokes as harmful. I'm not saying the joke should then not be allowed (depends - is it a white guy saying the N-word? etc.). Comedy will always be debated because it evolves with society. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean everything is allowed. That's why I've been surprised by the push back in this thread - I think all comedy should be on the table, but if you're out to just hurt a group with a joke (intent, context, tone, etc.) then I think it's fine to deride that person's joke. There's no obligation to of course. Can just ignore the joke, the comedian, etc. But there is a concern platforming famous people with bad views that they spread through their jokes. That's mostly what I mean about "punching down". I didn't say it wasn't allowed, just that it isn't a good look. I do hope I've at least answered your original question about what I mean by punching down at least.  But I think we agree overall.

 

Edit: I also think I've said a lot on this now so I'll probably step aside too - I hope I was clear as I could be at least.

 

25 minutes ago, TheLeon said:

 

And this is all why I don't think punching up/down is a great way to frame what we're talking about here. If the question is "what are comedians allowed to makes jokes about?", I think we're pretty much all in agreement: everything. Nothing should be off limits entirely. But it helps if you're actually making jokes, not just ranting/insulting.

 

As for people calling for comedians to be "cancelled" for jokes/comments that they don't like, I'm guessing most of them aren't exactly fans of comedy to begin with and nobody should really be paying attention to them.    I think most rational people adopt a simple "listen or don't listen" mentality and move on with their lives. This is why (going back to the OP) comedians complaining about "cancel culture" is dumb. Yeah, sure, you can't makes jokes anymore because everyone is too "PC". Boo hoo, nobody is actually stopping you from saying what you want. Some people will complain about you on the internet, big deal. 

 

This - the comedians are overblowing it. Most just tune them out or don't listen or move on to comedians they like. That's why they feel "cancelled" - a lot of people are just tuning out. I'm sure there is a segment online actually trying to ruin these peoples' careers but mostly its just younger people not finding you as funny as you used to be when you were younger. That's really it. That's what I'm attacking - famous comedians who are butt hurt they aren't as well loved as they consistently used to be and so say they are being "cancelled". This all has very little to do with the audiences and the nature of jokes. As we joked, Chappelle got "cancelled" into more Netflix specials and an SNL gig - so why is he whining about getting cancelled? That's the question I've tried to answer all thread. 

[stepee]

Complaining about “cancel culture” is just trying to suppress peoples right to free speech and protest anyway.

 

Its just some cracks started to show in the shield of protection that the privileged have and “cancel culture” is their way of repairing those cracks by trying to take away the ammo from the people by shaming them for speaking out.

 

 

[SuperSpreader]

31 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Anyway, have the last word on this and we can probably put the topic to bed for now