Dave Chappelle and the Uncomfortable Comedy
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:16 pm    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
governator wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
governator wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:

I think there are very few comedians who don't believe in the core of the humor they present. And those that don't tend to be those that are more of a character than the person themselves - people like Anthony Jeselnik come to mind.


Super complicated, care to break this down?


Not really. Have you seen Jeselnik's act?


no


His comedy is based on presenting a guy who is an (bleep), aggressively arrogant and amoral but make its interesting by ironically misdirecting that with some seeming decency and sincerity.

His act is a persona for the gag.

Burr's a guy who will certainly embellish himself for the gag, but he's up there being the "real" Bill Burr. It's his personality rather than a manufactured persona.

Have to disagree on your read there. Jeselnik's bit is that his persona never relents and never apologizes and that his cruelty is filtered through super tight joke structure that rivals late greats Rodney and Mitch. Jeselnik on stage is an unrelenting frat boy sociopath with perfect timing, punchlines, and tags for every bit.


We're actually not in disagreement . . . the keywords being "ironically" and "misdirecting".
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:44 pm    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Wilt wrote:
Quote:
I disagree. I think the good ones are definitely legit. Of course they still have to embellish a bit to maximize the laughs, but I do think they speak what they believe.

Let's assume that Bill Burr is a genuinely pissed off white guy. But does he really believe what he said about Michelle Obama? I doubt that. At least I hope he doesn't. He was probably thinking, "How do I create controversy in this PC culture? Oh yes, let's attack one of the most admired people in America!" Those are the embellishments that you talk about that will make some people laugh. And for people like Burr and Chapelle, they have to keep pushing that envelope, and the more they push it, the less genuine it becomes. In the case of Michelle Obama, it wasn't even great humor because it relied on a dishonest representation of her.


I think it's obvious that Burr believes that Michelle Obama's inherent value in society is based solely on her sexual relationship to her husband. If he doesnt believe that, and it's all some big Larry The Cable Guy act, then who exactly is his audience?

Patrice O'Neal aficionados?

Now watching and his opening 10 minutes would've played in 2002. Some very dated references to first ladies, Sting's tantric sex life, etc.

He's mingling pro-Kaepernick takes with anti-feminist takes now. People are onions.

But this overall isn't that great - Burr really isn't my type of comedian - so I'm going to save the rest for a more depressing evening.
_________________
Under New Management
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:02 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Haha. You are conflating legal freedom of speech and censorship, with social restriction of speech.

Dangerous stuff.

EDIT: I mean “different”, not dangerous. Was in a hurry to get out of the office.

I find it funny when comedians make a living complaining about society. And then complain if society complains about their set.
Social restriction of speech in a country where even Nazis are allowed to rally en masse is a boogeyman I'll never understand.
People in our country, comedians or otherwise, are allowed to say whatever they want no matter how unpopular. And other people are allowed to voice their opinions in response. There are no victims in the process unless words inspire violence.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12611

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:57 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Haha. You are conflating legal freedom of speech and censorship, with social restriction of speech.

Dangerous stuff.

EDIT: I mean “different”, not dangerous. Was in a hurry to get out of the office.

I find it funny when comedians make a living complaining about society. And then complain if society complains about their set.
Social restriction of speech in a country where even Nazis are allowed to rally en masse is a boogeyman I'll never understand.
People in our country, comedians or otherwise, are allowed to say whatever they want no matter how unpopular. And other people are allowed to voice their opinions in response. There are no victims in the process unless words inspire violence.


I believe most, if not all nearly all, comedians accept that the criticism comes with the territory. What they don't accept is when they are barred from from performing because some subset is offended.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:31 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Haha. You are conflating legal freedom of speech and censorship, with social restriction of speech.

Dangerous stuff.

EDIT: I mean “different”, not dangerous. Was in a hurry to get out of the office.

I find it funny when comedians make a living complaining about society. And then complain if society complains about their set.
Social restriction of speech in a country where even Nazis are allowed to rally en masse is a boogeyman I'll never understand.
People in our country, comedians or otherwise, are allowed to say whatever they want no matter how unpopular. And other people are allowed to voice their opinions in response. There are no victims in the process unless words inspire violence.


You are also conflating legal restriction of speech with social restriction of speech.

Legally, Nazis can rally en masse till they are blue in the face.

Socially, it is generally frowned upon which is good.

I’m not sure what you mean about “inspiring” violence. Lots of words can inspire violence. Direct calls for violence aside, if my words inspire a person to be violent, that is on them, not me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:23 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
You are also conflating legal restriction of speech with social restriction of speech.

Legally, Nazis can rally en masse till they are blue in the face.

Socially, it is generally frowned upon which is good.

I’m not sure what you mean about “inspiring” violence. Lots of words can inspire violence. Direct calls for violence aside, if my words inspire a person to be violent, that is on them, not me.


Social dynamics constantly change. And they aren't uniform, they vary based on time, geography and population. Certain speech being disliked by others isn't "restriction of speech". If I hold in gas around my significant other, she isn't restricting my bowels with social norms.
People still can say whatever they like and not care how others feel about it. If anything people are restricting themselves due to perceived social "frowning".

Direct calls of violence are obvious. But what about cult leaders? Some could argue they didn't tell their followers to kill themselves. They just preached and lived an inspirational message that involved salvation after death. Brainwashing and indoctrination is a real thing.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53712

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:32 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Haha. You are conflating legal freedom of speech and censorship, with social restriction of speech.

Dangerous stuff.

EDIT: I mean “different”, not dangerous. Was in a hurry to get out of the office.

I find it funny when comedians make a living complaining about society. And then complain if society complains about their set.
Social restriction of speech in a country where even Nazis are allowed to rally en masse is a boogeyman I'll never understand.
People in our country, comedians or otherwise, are allowed to say whatever they want no matter how unpopular. And other people are allowed to voice their opinions in response. There are no victims in the process unless words inspire violence.


I believe most, if not all nearly all, comedians accept that the criticism comes with the territory. What they don't accept is when they are barred from from performing because some subset is offended.


Who has been barred from performing and by who? There's a lot of places to perform and they all have different people in charge who decide who performs there. If a comic alienates their audience to the point where venues don't want to book them isn't it the comic's fault?
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:38 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
You are also conflating legal restriction of speech with social restriction of speech.

Legally, Nazis can rally en masse till they are blue in the face.

Socially, it is generally frowned upon which is good.

I’m not sure what you mean about “inspiring” violence. Lots of words can inspire violence. Direct calls for violence aside, if my words inspire a person to be violent, that is on them, not me.


Social dynamics constantly change. And they aren't uniform, they vary based on time, geography and population. Certain speech being disliked by others isn't "restriction of speech". If I hold in gas around my significant other, she isn't restricting my bowels with social norms.
People still can say whatever they like and not care how others feel about it. If anything people are restricting themselves due to perceived social "frowning".

Direct calls of violence are obvious. But what about cult leaders? Some could argue they didn't tell their followers to kill themselves. They just preached and lived an inspirational message that involved salvation after death. Brainwashing and indoctrination is a real thing.


People are routinely losing their jobs for expressing opinions or jokes people don’t like but that are perfectly legal in nature. Well, depending on which team the person who said it plays for anyway.

That isn’t illegal. So the question is — is that good for a society? Where people can be restricted from access to work, capital, etc because of their beliefs? Put aside the legal aspect. And in general, would it be better for a society if those with undesirable opinions can be ostracized? I can see merits and drawbacks on both sides.

As for cult leader I don’t know man. Some of our politicians today have cult followings so what is your plan for that exactly?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24994

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:39 am    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
If a comic alienates their audience to the point where venues don't want to book them isn't it the comic's fault?


side convo, just curious, do you think this applies to Colin Kaep?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
nickuku
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 7844
Location: Orange County

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:41 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
ocho wrote:
If a comic alienates their audience to the point where venues don't want to book them isn't it the comic's fault?


side convo, just curious, do you think this applies to Colin Kaep?


He's a (bleep) qb.
_________________
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:42 am    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
ribeye wrote:
kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Haha. You are conflating legal freedom of speech and censorship, with social restriction of speech.

Dangerous stuff.

EDIT: I mean “different”, not dangerous. Was in a hurry to get out of the office.

I find it funny when comedians make a living complaining about society. And then complain if society complains about their set.
Social restriction of speech in a country where even Nazis are allowed to rally en masse is a boogeyman I'll never understand.
People in our country, comedians or otherwise, are allowed to say whatever they want no matter how unpopular. And other people are allowed to voice their opinions in response. There are no victims in the process unless words inspire violence.


I believe most, if not all nearly all, comedians accept that the criticism comes with the territory. What they don't accept is when they are barred from from performing because some subset is offended.


Who has been barred from performing and by who? There's a lot of places to perform and they all have different people in charge who decide who performs there. If a comic alienates their audience to the point where venues don't want to book them isn't it the comic's fault?


I agree with you in a world without a stacked deck where you are required to speak out against these comedians if you want to keep your job.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:43 am    Post subject:

nickuku wrote:
governator wrote:
ocho wrote:
If a comic alienates their audience to the point where venues don't want to book them isn't it the comic's fault?


side convo, just curious, do you think this applies to Colin Kaep?


He's a (bleep) qb.


But his antics are a joke.

Seriously though, I do think there is a fine line between a comic being bad at comedy and thus undesirable...

... and a situation where they are being moderated. A very fine line that i a non-nuanced world few will understand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:50 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
People are routinely losing their jobs for expressing opinions or jokes people don’t like but that are perfectly legal in nature. Well, depending on which team the person who said it plays for anyway.

That isn’t illegal. So the question is — is that good for a society? Where people can be restricted from access to work, capital, etc because of their beliefs? Put aside the legal aspect. And in general, would it be better for a society if those with undesirable opinions can be ostracized? I can see merits and drawbacks on both sides.

As for cult leader I don’t know man. Some of our politicians today have cult followings so what is your plan for that exactly?


Employees reflect on the company they work for. Should a person be fired for something they can't control? Of course not. Should a person be fired for making a choice that is at odds with what the company desires? Sure. The person fired can always find somewhere else to work.
Otherwise you're restricting companies from establishing codes of conduct and taking away their ability to control how they are perceived by potential customers.

The support and opposition of certain beliefs is part of what makes a society a society. In terms of politicians inspiring violence in a cult like way. If the majority of the population they are representing believes their rhetoric merits removal, they should be removed using the mechanisms in place. If the mechanisms in place don't allow it, the population should vote to change the mechanisms and then use the new process to remove them.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53712

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:55 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
ocho wrote:
ribeye wrote:
kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Haha. You are conflating legal freedom of speech and censorship, with social restriction of speech.

Dangerous stuff.

EDIT: I mean “different”, not dangerous. Was in a hurry to get out of the office.

I find it funny when comedians make a living complaining about society. And then complain if society complains about their set.
Social restriction of speech in a country where even Nazis are allowed to rally en masse is a boogeyman I'll never understand.
People in our country, comedians or otherwise, are allowed to say whatever they want no matter how unpopular. And other people are allowed to voice their opinions in response. There are no victims in the process unless words inspire violence.


I believe most, if not all nearly all, comedians accept that the criticism comes with the territory. What they don't accept is when they are barred from from performing because some subset is offended.


Who has been barred from performing and by who? There's a lot of places to perform and they all have different people in charge who decide who performs there. If a comic alienates their audience to the point where venues don't want to book them isn't it the comic's fault?


I agree with you in a world without a stacked deck where you are required to speak out against these comedians if you want to keep your job.


Who has lost their job for writing positively about a comedian?
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53712

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:57 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
ocho wrote:
If a comic alienates their audience to the point where venues don't want to book them isn't it the comic's fault?


side convo, just curious, do you think this applies to Colin Kaep?


I think there are a lot of factors that differentiate that situation from these ones so for the purpose of keeping the thread on track let's stick to comics.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12611

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:00 am    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
ribeye wrote:
kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Haha. You are conflating legal freedom of speech and censorship, with social restriction of speech.

Dangerous stuff.

EDIT: I mean “different”, not dangerous. Was in a hurry to get out of the office.

I find it funny when comedians make a living complaining about society. And then complain if society complains about their set.
Social restriction of speech in a country where even Nazis are allowed to rally en masse is a boogeyman I'll never understand.
People in our country, comedians or otherwise, are allowed to say whatever they want no matter how unpopular. And other people are allowed to voice their opinions in response. There are no victims in the process unless words inspire violence.


I believe most, if not all nearly all, comedians accept that the criticism comes with the territory. What they don't accept is when they are barred from from performing because some subset is offended.


Who has been barred from performing and by who? There's a lot of places to perform and they all have different people in charge who decide who performs there. If a comic alienates their audience to the point where venues don't want to book them isn't it the comic's fault?


Bill Maher had an invitation rescinded at Berkeley. Louie CK is another. Some dude with dreadlocks is another. Upon Googling, Konstantin Kisin is another.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:05 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:

Bill Maher had an invitation rescinded at Berkeley. Louie CK is another. Some dude with dreadlocks is another.


In both scenarios I wouldn't describe it as a subset. It was a majority. And in that sense, the venue did a cost/benefit analysis and decided it would cost too much to allow them to perform.
Nothing wrong with that.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”


Last edited by kikanga on Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53712

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:05 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
ocho wrote:
ribeye wrote:
kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Haha. You are conflating legal freedom of speech and censorship, with social restriction of speech.

Dangerous stuff.

EDIT: I mean “different”, not dangerous. Was in a hurry to get out of the office.

I find it funny when comedians make a living complaining about society. And then complain if society complains about their set.
Social restriction of speech in a country where even Nazis are allowed to rally en masse is a boogeyman I'll never understand.
People in our country, comedians or otherwise, are allowed to say whatever they want no matter how unpopular. And other people are allowed to voice their opinions in response. There are no victims in the process unless words inspire violence.


I believe most, if not all nearly all, comedians accept that the criticism comes with the territory. What they don't accept is when they are barred from from performing because some subset is offended.


Who has been barred from performing and by who? There's a lot of places to perform and they all have different people in charge who decide who performs there. If a comic alienates their audience to the point where venues don't want to book them isn't it the comic's fault?


Bill Maher had an invitation rescinded at Berkeley. Louie CK is another. Some dude with dreadlocks is another.


Bill Maher tours the country regularly to sold out audiences in addition to hosting a weekly TV show seen by millions. I think a lot of performers would love to be de-platformed in such a way.

Louie still performs (I believe he has a show this weekend) but clubs aren't booking him en masse because of anything he said. He jacked off in front of women who he worked with and to date has refused to discuss it or explain himself. I believe if he did he could win a lot of his audience back, but that's a choice he's making.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12611

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:11 am    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
ribeye wrote:
ocho wrote:
ribeye wrote:
kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Haha. You are conflating legal freedom of speech and censorship, with social restriction of speech.

Dangerous stuff.

EDIT: I mean “different”, not dangerous. Was in a hurry to get out of the office.

I find it funny when comedians make a living complaining about society. And then complain if society complains about their set.
Social restriction of speech in a country where even Nazis are allowed to rally en masse is a boogeyman I'll never understand.
People in our country, comedians or otherwise, are allowed to say whatever they want no matter how unpopular. And other people are allowed to voice their opinions in response. There are no victims in the process unless words inspire violence.


I believe most, if not all nearly all, comedians accept that the criticism comes with the territory. What they don't accept is when they are barred from from performing because some subset is offended.


Who has been barred from performing and by who? There's a lot of places to perform and they all have different people in charge who decide who performs there. If a comic alienates their audience to the point where venues don't want to book them isn't it the comic's fault?


Bill Maher had an invitation rescinded at Berkeley. Louie CK is another. Some dude with dreadlocks is another.


Bill Maher tours the country regularly to sold out audiences in addition to hosting a weekly TV show seen by millions. I think a lot of performers would love to be de-platformed in such a way.

Louie still performs (I believe he has a show this weekend) but clubs aren't booking him en masse because of anything he said. He jacked off in front of women who he worked with and to date has refused to discuss it or explain himself. I believe if he did he could win a lot of his audience back, but that's a choice he's making.


Regardless how one wants to spin it, they were barred or had an appearance canceled because some didn't like their content or past behavior.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:11 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
ribeye wrote:

Bill Maher had an invitation rescinded at Berkeley. Louie CK is another. Some dude with dreadlocks is another.


In both scenarios I wouldn't describe it as a subset. It was a majority. And in that sense, the venue did a cost/benefit analysis and decided it would cost too much to allow them to perform.
Nothing wrong with that.


Hahahahahaha.

You made that up. Completely lied. Why?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53712

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:20 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
ocho wrote:
ribeye wrote:
ocho wrote:
ribeye wrote:
kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Haha. You are conflating legal freedom of speech and censorship, with social restriction of speech.

Dangerous stuff.

EDIT: I mean “different”, not dangerous. Was in a hurry to get out of the office.

I find it funny when comedians make a living complaining about society. And then complain if society complains about their set.
Social restriction of speech in a country where even Nazis are allowed to rally en masse is a boogeyman I'll never understand.
People in our country, comedians or otherwise, are allowed to say whatever they want no matter how unpopular. And other people are allowed to voice their opinions in response. There are no victims in the process unless words inspire violence.


I believe most, if not all nearly all, comedians accept that the criticism comes with the territory. What they don't accept is when they are barred from from performing because some subset is offended.


Who has been barred from performing and by who? There's a lot of places to perform and they all have different people in charge who decide who performs there. If a comic alienates their audience to the point where venues don't want to book them isn't it the comic's fault?


Bill Maher had an invitation rescinded at Berkeley. Louie CK is another. Some dude with dreadlocks is another.


Bill Maher tours the country regularly to sold out audiences in addition to hosting a weekly TV show seen by millions. I think a lot of performers would love to be de-platformed in such a way.

Louie still performs (I believe he has a show this weekend) but clubs aren't booking him en masse because of anything he said. He jacked off in front of women who he worked with and to date has refused to discuss it or explain himself. I believe if he did he could win a lot of his audience back, but that's a choice he's making.


Regardless how one wants to spin it, they were barred or had an appearance canceled because some didn't like their content or past behavior.


I think it's important to establish what exactly we are discussing here. Bill Maher and Louie have little to nothing to do with each other. Maher is an extremely wealthy performer who plays all over the place and has a show where he give his opinion every week on national television. He has hardly been silenced or de-platformed. He alienated a small segment of his very large audience and lost ONE small gig over it. His brand of comedy is meant to provoke people by design. Pissing people off is baked right in and he knows it. We really want to cry foul because one small audience said no thanks? We can revisit this if he ever actually gets silenced.

Louie, again, didn't lose anything for anything he said. Before the NYT piece he was making jokes about child molestation on mainstream national TV shows and everyone thought he was hilarious. He lost work because of borderline sexual assault which he has refused to comment about. And even he hasn't been silenced. He's performing this weekend.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:21 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:

Regardless how one wants to spin it, they were barred or had an appearance canceled because some didn't like their content or past behavior.


Not sure what your point is.

Venues have a total right to decide who performs in them

Comedians don't have a right to perform where ever they wish. They have other venues that will accommodate them. If it really reaches a point where they can't perform at all, anywhere (which is essentially impossible in this age that is littered with various platforms on which to perform - even Louis CK gets gigs), then it might be time for that comedian to question what their act entails.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12611

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:29 am    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
ribeye wrote:
ocho wrote:
ribeye wrote:
ocho wrote:
ribeye wrote:
kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Haha. You are conflating legal freedom of speech and censorship, with social restriction of speech.

Dangerous stuff.

EDIT: I mean “different”, not dangerous. Was in a hurry to get out of the office.

I find it funny when comedians make a living complaining about society. And then complain if society complains about their set.
Social restriction of speech in a country where even Nazis are allowed to rally en masse is a boogeyman I'll never understand.
People in our country, comedians or otherwise, are allowed to say whatever they want no matter how unpopular. And other people are allowed to voice their opinions in response. There are no victims in the process unless words inspire violence.


I believe most, if not all nearly all, comedians accept that the criticism comes with the territory. What they don't accept is when they are barred from from performing because some subset is offended.


Who has been barred from performing and by who? There's a lot of places to perform and they all have different people in charge who decide who performs there. If a comic alienates their audience to the point where venues don't want to book them isn't it the comic's fault?


Bill Maher had an invitation rescinded at Berkeley. Louie CK is another. Some dude with dreadlocks is another.


Bill Maher tours the country regularly to sold out audiences in addition to hosting a weekly TV show seen by millions. I think a lot of performers would love to be de-platformed in such a way.

Louie still performs (I believe he has a show this weekend) but clubs aren't booking him en masse because of anything he said. He jacked off in front of women who he worked with and to date has refused to discuss it or explain himself. I believe if he did he could win a lot of his audience back, but that's a choice he's making.


Regardless how one wants to spin it, they were barred or had an appearance canceled because some didn't like their content or past behavior.


I think it's important to establish what exactly we are discussing here. Bill Maher and Louie have little to nothing to do with each other. Maher is an extremely wealthy performer who plays all over the place and has a show where he give his opinion every week on national television. He has hardly been silenced or de-platformed. He alienated a small segment of his very large audience and lost ONE small gig over it. His brand of comedy is meant to provoke people by design. Pissing people off is baked right in and he knows it. We really want to cry foul because one small audience said no thanks? We can revisit this if he ever actually gets silenced.

Louie, again, didn't lose anything for anything he said. Before the NYT piece he was making jokes about child molestation on mainstream national TV shows and everyone thought he was hilarious. He lost work because of borderline sexual assault which he has refused to comment about. And even he hasn't been silenced. He's performing this weekend.


You are taking this somewhere I never intended by my original comment. My point was that most comedians accept criticism except when the voices behind the criticism, likely people who do not want to see them, is such that it overpowers the audience that wants to hear them. I wasn't looking for you or anyone else to pity them.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:31 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ribeye wrote:

Regardless how one wants to spin it, they were barred or had an appearance canceled because some didn't like their content or past behavior.


Not sure what your point is.

Venues have a total right to decide who performs in them

Comedians don't have a right to perform where ever they wish. They have other venues that will accommodate them. If it really reaches a point where they can't perform at all, anywhere (which is essentially impossible in this age that is littered with various platforms on which to perform - even Louis CK gets gigs), then it might be time for that comedian to question what their act entails.


I don’t disagree in theory DMR, but you can apply this to a LOT of other areas of society.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:38 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
kikanga wrote:
ribeye wrote:

Bill Maher had an invitation rescinded at Berkeley. Louie CK is another. Some dude with dreadlocks is another.


In both scenarios I wouldn't describe it as a subset. It was a majority. And in that sense, the venue did a cost/benefit analysis and decided it would cost too much to allow them to perform.
Nothing wrong with that.


Hahahahahaha.

You made that up. Completely lied. Why?


Having the student body in uproar wouldn't have cost Berkeley? Having pissed off alumni wouldn't have cost Berkeley?
Having Louie CK associated with an act wouldn't have hurt the venue?

Do you think people are acting against their own financial interests?
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB