Should Comedians Be Held Accountable For The Things That They Say?

[Seil]

Right now, as far as comedians go, we have a bit of a double standard. If we were to say something like "You can't be racist anymore," Chris Rock (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui6-Wc0PDc4) and Russell Peters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew2r1ST7O_c) would have to throw out their acts. If we were to say "You can't talk about homosexuality. People might get offended." Then Ellen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3fBZRuQlfQ) and Elvira Kurt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EXSce2h2yY) will stick to daytime TV and CBC radio.

As a society, I think we're becoming too safe - it's not "what offends people," it's "what might offend people." And people are getting offended over everything these days - I've had arguments with people who believe that the original Cookie Monster was destroying the youth of today. That clerks should be required to tell customers that their coffee is hot. The things we're upset about today are just so... ludicrous that they shouldn't even be brought out into the open. Then why do we laugh at comedians?

I've heard a comedian say "We can get away with saying stuff like... If you heard someone say what I'm saying in a parking lot somewhere, you'd sock him one." Comedians like Christopher Titus have their opinions. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w92lVv9qsX8) The argument to be made for stand-ups is that it's all done for comic effect. But at the other end of the spectrum, you've got Michael Richards. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amjUNF_R_PY) So where's the in between?

I want to draw attention to Guy Earle. Guy Earle is in trouble for some recent comments (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2008/06/26/bc-guy-earle-comic-human-rights-complaint.html) while he was on stage. First hearing about this on Tuesday's CBC podcast, (http://www.cbc.ca/q/) he makes his argument in a debate with a fellow lesbian comedian and a lawyer. His argument doesn't consist of anything resembling what we've condemned Michael Richards for, but that there was a gay couple who were exceedingly rude during his performance, chatting, heckling, flipping him the bird...

Now, I'm of the opinion that if you go see a show, you pay your however much money it is to get in, sit down and enjoy the show. Or not enjoy the show. Whatever. But don't be rude to everyone around you, and for God's sake, don't be rude to the performers! There is a long list (http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/06/videos-egregiou/) of performers getting agitated over audience members. There's been performers in the middle of a play who've waited for an audience member to finish their cell phone conversation. The whole point here is what is acceptable in the theater/club - not just for the performer, but the audience as well.

We should all be held accountable for our actions, but where do we draw the line?

[Archbio]

Earle admits that he wanted "to find the root to what's going to offend them the most, and shut them up or get them out or whatever." Gee, that almost, I don't know, sounds violent. Oh but oh no, deep down, he's such a nice guy. Screw that, I don't know what's deep down.

And no, we're hardly getting "too safe," no matter how often it's said.

[DFM]

Michael Richards wasn't even doing it for comic effect, he's just a huge racist. Or a really good actor who thought screaming and going off on a racist tirade during one of his shows would be good for publicity.

I've heard performers on TV/Radio that I would have shouted at and heckled if I were at their show, either for being terrible comedians or being really fucking dumb. I obviously think they should be able to say whatever really fucking dumb thing they have to say, and I also obviously think they should have some accountability for it that they can't just wash away with 'It's a joke, man.' Even if it's them coming out and saying 'Well, I hate women.' or whatever.

The suing McDonald's for having 'hot' coffee is actually a valid suit since McDonald's coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns on six percent of her body and I think lesser burns on another twenty percent. She was in medical treatment for two years and it cost more than ten thousand dollars to make her not horribly disfigured by coffee that in no way should have been that goddamn hot.

As for Cookie Monster going vegan or whatever, I don't have much of a problem with it, as long as they kept his personality intact. I know that was barely half mentioned in your post but I fucking love Cookie Monster.

Edit: Hey Archbio, deja vu

[Amake]

Sure. As long as there's freedom of speech you must always be prepared to pay for what you want to say.

What does that mean, though? What's the punishment for making offensive jokes? I can't imagine it's something you wouldn't willingly pay if you've got something important to say. (Like a good joke.)

Also, getting upset over the cookie monster is just a way for lazy and scared people to feel like they're doing something relevant while comfortably ignoring actual problems. In my opinion.

[Mirai Gen]

The suing McDonald's for having 'hot' coffee is actually a valid suit since McDonald's coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns on six percent of her body and I think lesser burns on another twenty percent. She was in medical treatment for two years and it cost more than ten thousand dollars to make her not horribly disfigured by coffee that in no way should have been that goddamn hot.
Yeah but that isn't funny sounding.

See if you just say "She spilled hot coffee on herself and sued McDonalds and won" you get a laughing ignorant audience.

[Amake]

When I hear of these hot coffee incidents I always remember this unlikely story I heard about how Starbucks have a patent on a water molecule design that keeps coffee liquid up to 3000°C. It lets them cook a large amount at half the temperature of the surface of the fucking sun and then have it standing around all day without going cold.

I can't think of any more likely explanation for the ridiculously hot coffee fast food places sometimes serve.

[Tev]

I’m actually a little confused about the thermodynamics involved in getting water hot enough to cause such serious burns and yet have it not assume gaseous form. I mean, I’m well aware that pressurized steam can attain temperatures to cause 3rd degree burns, and I’m reasonably sure that you can replicate those wounds with water that has reached a constant boil…but hot coffee? Poured into a cup and then transferred from its heating source to a car? If I cut the stove for more than ten seconds the water loose enough heat to stop boiling.

What crazy magic-in-cup is McDonalds brewing?

Ninja Edit:
When I hear of these hot coffee incidents I always remember this unlikely story I heard about how Starbucks have a patent on a water molecule design that keeps coffee liquid up to 3000°C.Oh, so that's the unlikely magic....

[Mirai Gen]

IIRC it was because the warmer was broken and it had pretty much lost all ability to regulate its own temperature so it pretty much boiled it all day. Imagine putting your electric stove's coil into a pot of sealed water all day then splashing a bit on yourself.

TEV EDIT: Those industrial coffee pots that fast food chains use are sealed, so it wouldn't be able to escape in gaseous form. Plus that was part of the reason she sued - how did nobody not notice this?

[Sithdarth]

Water at only 140 F can give you a full thickness burn in about 10 seconds. Just because your water stopped boiling doesn't mean its still not close to 200 F which is more than enough for burns. Burns from liquids tend to go deeper and be over a larger area than dry burns. If you think about it even though that pot full of water is only around 200 F it took a lot of fire that was much hotter than that to get it there. Water soaks up a lot of thermal energy and its the amount of energy delivered that determines the burn not the temperature. Really the only thing temperature does is make the burn happen faster. A small flame may be hot but it doesn't have enough thermal energy for significant burns. You end up with very quick superficial burns and pain unless you hold the flame to your skin for awhile. With near boiling water you get the double whammy of a lot of thermal energy and the fact that water tends to stick to you and seep into your clothes. Its a bit like dosing yourself in gasoline and lighting it on fire.

[Meister]

If I cut the stove for more than ten seconds the water loose enough heat to stop boiling.
Yeah but would you put your hand in it?

[Funka Genocide]

Well I don't know exactly what the dude said so its hard to say if he was wrong or right.

I mean getting cheesed off at some jackasses that are ruining your show is perfectly fine, but venting that anger in the form of remarks that do more to disparage an entire sub-sect of society rather than the persons in question is probably not a good idea.

Saying something like "You two are a couple of fucks who should shoot themselves" is perfectly ok since it's being very specific and doesn't use any prejudicial commentary.

But if your insults are derived from prejudice, then it sort of loses water. Calling women bitches is sexist, since its gender specific. Calling them bull dykes or rug munchers or whatever is prejudicial in that it disparages lesbians.

I personally advocate the universal usage of asshole and fuck in all crude insult language, mainly for the sake of the children.

As for racially motivated comedy that isn't directly insulting, well I feel it's a bit of a gray area. For some reason I find myself laughing at certain routines by the likes of Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle but I can't stand Carlos Mencia. Maybe it's just a certain intellect and a healthy dose of satire that are used by some to temper the overt racism that makes it more palatable.

Of course, stereotypes often times exist for a reason. Pointing out the reality of stereotypes can be hilarious and even somewhat eye opening. Going through life assuming that everyone is a unique and special flower that is in no way affected by their subculture is just as willfully ignorant as assuming everyone's personality is entirely dictated by their subculture.

[DFM]

Really it's just because Carlos Mencia is awful.

[Funka Genocide]

Really it's just because Carlos Mencia is awful.

yeah, that too.

[DFM]

And I like Dane Cook so when I tell you a comedian is awful god damn.

[Mirai Gen]

Yeah I remember Mencia's Race Olympics where he had competitors investigate dick size and steal a TV and eat watermelon.

That's pretty much it.

[Funka Genocide]

You know I really never could understand the basis for food related racism.

Who the fuck doesn't like watermelon and fried chicken? Seriously. That shit is delicious, fuck you.

[Marc v4.0]

You know I really never could understand the basis for food related racism.

Who the fuck doesn't like watermelon and fried chicken? Seriously. That shit is delicious, fuck you.

I live in the South. Wrap your mind around a group of 3 older white men making fun of black people liking chicken WHILE EATING UP 3 BUCKETS OF CHICKEN.

I swear if I ever get a brain tumor I'm blaming that scene

[Archbio]

Who the fuck doesn't like watermelon and fried chicken? Seriously. That shit is delicious, fuck you.

Just not together.

[Funka Genocide]

I always feel kind of bad when someone mentions the stereotype of Hispanic Americans living 15 people to a house, because I don't want it to be true but then I remember that I pretty much grew up this way and that some of my family still has kids sleeping in cupboards and whatnot. (Well not exactly, but seriously how the fuck do you get 4 families into a 3 bedroom house?)

[Archbio]

(Well not exactly, but seriously how the fuck do you get 4 families into a 3 bedroom house?)

There's always a couple of dimensions that aren't being used in any given space.

[Funka Genocide]

There's always a couple of dimensions that aren't being used in any given space.


Have you ever seen a grown man sleep on a bunk bed?

Hilarious (especially when he's like 5' 2'').

[A Zarkin' Frood]

I misread the thread title as "Should Canadians Be Held Accountable For The Things That They Say" and thought: "man what a stupid question. They're just people like everyone else why should they get any special treatments?".

Then I read it again.

[DFM]

Sometimes I think we forget we ever went through Canada's Suffrage.

[Seil]

Who the fuck doesn't like watermelon and fried chicken? Seriously. That shit is delicious, fuck you.

Haha chicken and watermelon. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB8AozV1TD0)

[Azisien]

Comedians, no.

Canadians, we should probably keep our eyes on them. They're up to something.

[Ecks]

Comedians get paid good money to say offensive shit on stage. I don't see any reason why they should be held accountable for it. Yes, some of it is truly despicable stuff, yes, some of it is a little out there. But who's laughing at it?

Most comedians keep their personal beliefs and on-stage personae separate anyway.

[Osterbaum]

There's a difference between doing a joke and being a dick/racist/bigott/whatever.

[Green Spanner]

There's a difference between doing a joke and being a dick/racist/bigott/whatever.

Unless you work in the tabloid media.

[Archbio]

Comedians get paid good money to say offensive shit on stage. I don't see any reason why they should be held accountable for it.

The action is performed for material gain, therefore it's not wrong?

I really have to remember that.

[Geminex]

I'll leave EckScizor to defend himself, but that's taken out of context. His statement seemed less

"Actions performed for material gain always have moral integrity! LOOOL let's sell babies for money!"

and more like

"Comedian's offensive material is implicitly accepted, not only because it amuses people, but, more importantly, because it amuses people enough that members of this society will pay them to make these jokes. Offensive material seems to have value to many members of this society, so any condemnation by this society would be hypocritical."

That argument isn't entirely rock-solid either, but it isn't worthy of either your condemnation or your sarcasm.

[DFM]

"Accountable" doesn't mean arrested or censored, it means owning up and taking the public backlash when they say something that's "Too Soon" or offensive without trying to tell people they're being all crazy and it's just a harmless little joke.

Edit: Abolitionists were hypocrites because tons of people bought slaves.

[Premmy]

"Accountable" doesn't mean arrested or censored, it means owning up and taking the public backlash when they say something that's "Too Soon" or offensive without trying to tell people they're being all crazy and it's just a harmless little joke.

Edit: Abolitionists were hypocrites because tons of people bought slaves.
I agree with this, and I'll tell you why.
What Premmy hears when people Bitch about "Policitical Correctness Gone Mad":

"Dammt, why can't we call niggers niggers anymore? It seems like everytime I call a nigger a nigger, He goes and gets pissed, How dare he exercise his freedom of speech by calling me a dick when I act like a dick, that's an infringement on my freedom of speech! I should be ever to do whatever the fuck I want and not deal with how it affects others. It did'nt used to be like this, Niggers and Fags and chinks and dykes used to know their place and keep their mouths shut."

There are no laws or legal ramifications for you acting like a dick, there are people who can now more freely exercise their freedoms in calling you on your shit.

There are no "PC Police" just people who will blink when you spit in their eye.

Comedy:

As far as I'm concerned, Comedy about racism is good, and healthy in many cases. Racist comedy? not so much, but we live in a free country, so let them be dicks, I'll be right there, calling them idiots and dicks

As an Example:

"Black man does'nt get cab" is a comedy routine about racism, because it highlights an effect of racism, and makes no claims concerning the people involved,(if done properly)

"Asians can't drive" is a Racist Comedy bit about asians.

Edit: This is why
Dave Chapelle> Carlos Mencia
Dave made jokes about racism, Carlos Mencia makes racist jokes

[Seil]

Just wanna point out something my high school Law prof told the class - "Everyone has the right to free speech, as long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights. If you went to a movie and someone started talking on their cell phone, that person is alienating the rights of everyone else in the theater."

[DFM]

This movie is alienating my right to free speech by interrupting my cell phone conversation FUCK YOU CLARK GABLE.

Edit: Seil what inalienable rights are being violated by someone talking during your movie? And if you cop out and say Pursuit of Happiness I'm going to alienate your face.

[Mirai Gen]

The action is performed for material gain, therefore it's not wrong?

I really have to remember that.
Oh-hoh, Archbio! You have fought well this day! Touche, and what not, trousers and marmalade!

That's not what he's saying and you know it. Comedians get paid to make people laugh - there isn't anything sacred or holy about the way they get the job done. The reason Carlos Mencia is a terrible comedian is because he doesn't make people laugh. He just says stupid racist shit all covered with audience stock-laughter to cover for the fact that none of it is funny.

Yes there are certain lines that are crossed and sometimes it can be too soon or just too offensive, but that's up to the individual case. So yes they need to be responsible for their actions, but they need to know when to agree it was in bad taste and when to tell people to take a joke.

"Did the people laugh when you said what you said? I said, yes. He asked did you get paid? I said yes. He said well tell Bill I said to have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up!"

[Premmy]

Edit: actually, what I just said serves no purpose, Deleting it, But I will say that the
'Learn How to take a joke" Thing seems to come from some inability to understand that everyone has different experiences and that your personal experience is'nt universal.
"You need to learn how to take a joke, I don't see how this effects You based on MY perspective, so instead of just apologizing, I'll say You have a problem."

[Archbio]

That's not what he's saying and you know it. Comedians get paid to make people laugh - there isn't anything sacred or holy about the way they get the job done.

You're not actually correcting me on anything, there.

It's also kind of the same thing when Geminex put more emphasis on the "hypocrisy gambit."

It's their job, so it's ok.

or

They get paid for it, which is the mark of unimpeachable social approbation, therefore nobody can say that it's not ok without being an hypocrite (being a part of society), therefore it's in practice ok.

There's no real difference in substance. So no, that's what he was saying. They get paid good money, therefore it's alright. "They're just doing their job." That's the gist of it.

Edit: If it's going to be: "well, it's funny, therefore it's a-ok" or "well, it's popular, therefore it's a-ok!," it's really not any more valid. I mean, only the latter is formally a fallacy, but that's because I don't think funniness ever had any wide recognition as a standard of what's alright.

[Geminex]

Two points:

Firstly, when I wrote what I did I was responding to your, probably deliberate, misinterpretation of ExScizor (or however he's spelled)'s post. I don't take that view myself.

Secondly, perhaps it's not hypocrisy, but criticizing the comedians for making jokes, but not the audience for laughing at them does miss an important part of the issue. Of course comedians should know better, and are in the wrong. But if we're going to find a solution we have to find the root of the problem. And that, I do believe, lies in the fact that our culture as a whole finds the concept of "Us vs Them" very appealing, and that it happens far too often that people are lumped into "Them", when there's really nothing significant separating them from "Us".

And thirdly (I lied) I smell a flame war coming on. The delightful hint of arrogance underlines the aroma of Drama, and I do hope that somebody turns down the stove before it all boils over and a mod has to put a lid on it.

[Archbio]

Firstly, when I wrote what I did I was responding to your, probably deliberate, misinterpretation of ExScizor (or however he's spelled)'s post. I don't take that view myself.

It wasn't a misinterpretation. No matter how many steps you add to the original argument (and Mirai Gen's demonstrates that there are indeed several different paths that "obviously" link the proposition that "they get paid good money" to that that "they shouldn't be held accountable,) it doesn't get any more logical or less extremely suspect if you apply it to other situations.


And thirdly (I lied) I smell a flame war coming on. The delightful hint of arrogance underlines the aroma of Drama, and I do hope that somebody turns down the stove before it all boils over and a mod has to put a lid on it.

For my part, I haven't made it personal. I'd think that this "arrogance" comment is actually a bigger step in that direction than anything that anybody else has written yet.

[Premmy]

Secondly, perhaps it's not hypocrisy, but criticizing the comedians for making jokes, but not the audience for laughing at them does miss an important part of the issue.
We should.... criticize people... for having different senses of humor? I don't get it.

Of course comedians should know better, and are in the wrong.
My problem is less whether or not they know better, but more to the fact that they(comedians, anybody being a dick) don't understand what's wrong with their behavior, or do, but don't want to admit to it.

In other words, Be a dick, and be shameless about it, don't be a dick, then blame others for calling you a dick and go "what? YOU'RE the one being a dick! can't you take a joke?"

People will still hate you for it, but most people will give you some begrudging respect for it.

But if we're going to find a solution we have to find the root of the problem. And that, I do believe, lies in the fact that our culture as a whole finds the concept of "Us vs Them" very appealing, and that it happens far too often that people are lumped into "Them", when there's really nothing significant separating them from "Us".

Different people are different, there are some things that tie us all together, but you get into trouble when you start believing you can apply your perspective to everyone's experiences and get satsifying results.
It's not necessariyl "Us v Them" and more "Just Us"

And thirdly (I lied) I smell a flame war coming on. The delightful hint of arrogance underlines the aroma of Drama, and I do hope that somebody turns down the stove before it all boils over and a mod has to put a lid on it.
Well, that does'nt help matters at all, does it?

[Geminex]

We should.... criticize people... for having different senses of humor?
We're holding the people who make the jokes accountable. Why not the people who laugh at them? Is going "I say, I say, I say, the other day I saw a BLACK GUY eating WATERMELON!" any more offensive than laughing at that?


In other words, Be a dick, and be shameless about it, don't be a dick, then blame others for calling you a dick and go "what? YOU'RE the one being a dick! can't you take a joke?"

I totally agree with this. It happens. Far too often. But since we can't outlaw "Being a Dick", the only way to stop this kind of behavior is by influencing society directly. This may be done through mind-control apparati, though I believe various other media can also be quite effective.

Different people are different, there are some things that tie us all together, but you get into trouble when you start believing you can apply your perspective to everyone's experiences and get satsifying results.

Well, I think that in the "US vs THEM" mindframe, what really makes someone "THEM" is that certain values held by "US" cannot be applied to them, or that they just don't measure up to these values. This in turn is caused by "US" being unwilling to recognize "THEIR" values. If it were "JUST US" that'd be ideal, because there would be no "THEM", that is to say, nobody different, that doesn't belong.

Well, that does'nt help matters at all, does it?
Edit: NEVERMIND perhaps I was being a dick. Though you have to admire my use of metaphor.

[DFM]

We're holding the people who make the jokes accountable. Why not the people who laugh at them? Is going "I say, I say, I say, the other day I saw a BLACK GUY eating WATERMELON!" any more offensive than laughing at that?


Probably because there's no real way to do that unless they repeat the joke or you record a comedy act, watch it to find out who laughed, find out who they are, then send them increasingly curt letters asking them to explain themselves.

[Premmy]

We're holding the people who make the jokes accountable. Why not the people who laugh at them? Is going "I say, I say, I say, the other day I saw a BLACK GUY eating WATERMELON!" any more offensive than laughing at that?
They're dicks too, but acting Like Calling a dick a dick is somehow being "Over sensitive" is just victim blaming of the highest order.

I totally agree with this. It happens. Far too often. But since we can't outlaw "Being a Dick", the only way to stop this kind of behavior is by influencing society directly. This may be done through mind-control apparati, though I believe various other media can also be quite effective.


I really don't give two fucks about individual dickery, people are dicks, this is a fact of life, It's hardly the problem, a symptom of a greater issue, but not the issue itself.

Barring extreme symptoms( and this is'nt one of those) you treat the disease, not the symptom. The symptoms let you know the disease is present, which is why attention is drawn to it, but the culture at large does'nt want to move beyond that, which is why we're discussing comedians now.

I don't want to "stop" people being dicks, because sometimes it can lead to beneficial results. And the idea itself bridges far to deeply into Mind control and dictating what kinds of personalities people can have, which is part of the problem we're actually dealing with in the first place.

Well, I think that in the "US vs THEM" mindframe, what really makes someone "THEM" is that certain values held by "US" cannot be applied to them, or that they just don't measure up to these values. This in turn is caused by "US" being unwilling to recognize "THEIR" values. If it were "JUST US" that'd be ideal, because there would be no "THEM", that is to say, nobody different, that doesn't belong.
The issue is'nt the presence of "Them" The issue is "Us" being over anybody else. It's "Just US" because we're only concerned with "Us" and if you're not "Us" you can just go rot.

So, the idea is We "Just" care about "Us" and anybody else is going to get run over in the process.


I didn't say whose arrogance. Quite a bit of it is mine. And you have to admire my use of metaphor.

fine fine, but you just know it's gonna get worse from there, man, C'mon.

[Geminex]

Probably because there's no real way to do that unless they repeat the joke or you record a comedy act, watch it to find out who laughed, find out who they are, then send them increasingly curt letters asking them to explain themselves.

Despite the potential hilarity of doing so, this leads back to what I was saying. (Or trying to say. I may have expressed it badly) You can influence comedians, hold them accountable. But you can't hold the audience accountable, it isn't practically possible. What we can do is recognize that the audience's reaction is as much part of the problem as the Comedian's actions, and then analyze society to evaluate why the audience (that is to say, some elements of society) react the way they do, and then consider how this can be changed. If we don't, we're not addressing the problem, we're simply reiterating that racist comedians are dickheads

[Geminex]

I don't want to "stop" people being dicks, because sometimes it can lead to beneficial results. And the idea itself bridges far to deeply into Mind control and dictating what kinds of personalities people can have, which is part of the problem we're actually dealing with in the first place.

There were quite a lot of authors who thought the same way as me (or rather, I think the same way as them... isn't it wonderfull, what you learn in German class?), and what they did was simply write books and plays that illustrated their points wonderfully. No mind control. Just compelling writing that underlined the flaws in society. Most of them didn't offer solutions, couldn't offer solutions, but their purpose was to create awareness. They did. ^^
An example would be the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physicists

So, the idea is We "Just" care about "Us" and anybody else is going to get run over in the process.

Kay, I see what you mean. I think we're both adressing the same problem, only in my view "US" are more agressive towards "THEM", want them actively gone and in your view "US" just disregard anyone that isn't "US". Yours might actually be more accurate, since this is less "Hey, let's lynch the black guys!" and more "Hey, let's make jokes about the black guys being black, who cares what they thing?"

fine fine, but you just know it's gonna get worse from there, man, C'mon.

Hence my edit. Yes, I'm the arrogant dick here. Or was. Not sure.

[Premmy]

There were quite a lot of authors who thought the same way as me (or rather, I think the same way as them... isn't it wonderfull, what you learn in German class?), and what they did was simply write books and plays that illustrated their points wonderfully. No mind control. Just compelling writing that underlined the flaws in society. Most of them didn't offer solutions, couldn't offer solutions, but their purpose was to create awareness. They did. ^^
See, this is how you(or rather,one way) change the culture, the disease of our culture(and it's dominance) shitting all over everyone, and thus allowing for even more horrible behavior and actions.

Stand-up comdians are almost textbook individual dickishness, and that's something that can't really be changed, and, considering the few ways it might be possible(mind Control and whatnot) and the fact that the particular way in which they express their dickishness is a minor symptom of a greater problem, Are'nt worth trying, and probably a bad idea to try anyway.
Hence my edit. Yes, I'm the arrogant dick here. Or was. Not sure.
Started posting before the edit, sorry.

[Geminex]

Are'nt worth trying, and probably a bad idea to try anyway.
Well, if you tried then they'd be probably too busy making fun of you to make racist jokes for a while, their audience would howl with laughter at the silly socialists trying to restrict freedom speech, and you would have achieved nothing. But addressing the larger issue, trying to make the audience realize that the dick's actually dick and not funny at all, that's not impossible, is it? It's what I've been trying to advocate.

[DFM]

Bullets. Bullets to all their noggins.

[Premmy]

Well, if you tried then they'd be probably too busy making fun of you to make racist jokes for a while, their audience would howl with laughter at the silly socialists trying to restrict freedom speech, and you would have achieved nothing. But addressing the larger issue, trying to make the audience realize that the dick's actually dick and not funny at all, that's not impossible, is it?
They're dicks too,
^
I Keeed I keeed

But seriously, that recquires conversations such as this on a personal level, because as I've said, the issue is'nt the individual saying rude things, but the culture that encourages it. This is hard because the culture itself wants to focus on the individual(which coincidnetally, just so happens to be an expression of the problem :P) and thus, getting individuals to sit down and have these conversations is damn fucking hard, and focusing on convincing one jerk they're acting like a jerk pales in comparison to more pressing matters.*

Pushing the culture in a more positive direction and *making absolutely certain people are'nt being actively oppressed so that they themselves can properly assist in these things,( Protip: We ARE'NT, and that's a HUGGGE problem) IS the bigger issue.

[Mirai Gen]

They get paid for it, which is the mark of unimpeachable social approbation, therefore nobody can say that it's not ok without being an hypocrite (being a part of society), therefore it's in practice ok.
Jesus Christ, Archbio.

I honestly never thought someone would tell me that I'm a hypocrite for saying that Guy Earle can make whatever tasteless joke the fuck he wants while I sit over here not spending my money on him because I disagree. But there it is.

[Premmy]

I think Archbio is talkining about whether or not what they, The comedians, are doing is bad in and of itself.

[Geminex]

Yah, that comment was actually Archbio "reiterating" (I put it in quotations, because that wasn't what I was saying) mine and Mirai's points. I think Prems and myself have cleared most of that up now, though if there's any further discussion or objection, I'd be happy to be PMed about that.

[Sithdarth]

Just going to put this out there. Generally speaking comedians shouldn't be held accountable for what they say but how they say it. Without the context of intonation and gestures its almost impossible to actually get the true meaning of anything that was said much less a joke. A joke about racism can easily become a racist joke depending on who says it, where they say it, how they say it, etc. That's not to say that there aren't things that should be avoided outright. I simply wish to point out that judging a joke by its denotation is like saying a song sucks after seeing the sheet music. (Unless its obviously a bad joke.) And of course its up to the individual listen to judge the actual meaning behind the joke and get offended or not. That is as long as they are reacting to what they perceive as the intention and not a knee jerk literal translation.

[Archbio]

Yah, that comment was actually Archbio "reiterating" (I put it in quotations, because that wasn't what I was saying) mine and Mirai's points. I think Prems and myself have cleared most of that up now

Consider me mystified, then, about what you were saying, and how it relates to EckScizor's four sentence argument; which is really the only thing that I've been discussing. I mean I'm pretty sure I've expressed no opinion about your treatise on "how to tackle the problematic of bigotted comedy," but rather on a post which really can only be interpreted (in itself, not the version that's annoted by everybody else and their monkeys) as the poster proposing that comedians "should not be held accountable," and that this as something to do with them "being paid good money."

And I'm pretty sure I haven't called Mirai Gen an hypocrite or said anything approaching, but maybe what I'm typing right now is just word salad, because there really seems to be a bit of a communication issue. However, it's not a communication issue I feel very motivated to resolve. There's just no point to it.

[Ecks]

The action is performed for material gain, therefore it's not wrong?

I really have to remember that.

I'll leave EckScizor to defend himself, but that's taken out of context. His statement seemed less

"Actions performed for material gain always have moral integrity! LOOOL let's sell babies for money!"

and more like

"Comedian's offensive material is implicitly accepted, not only because it amuses people, but, more importantly, because it amuses people enough that members of this society will pay them to make these jokes. Offensive material seems to have value to many members of this society, so any condemnation by this society would be hypocritical."

That argument isn't entirely rock-solid either, but it isn't worthy of either your condemnation or your sarcasm.

To be completely honest, I probably shouldn't have put anything in there about the money. My point wasn't clearly expressed, and I should own up to that. What I meant to say was, being a comedian is what they do for a living. They go up on stage to say things that make us laugh, to entertain. Now, looking at the sorts of things we watch/participate in to be entertained tells us that we, as a species, are pretty sick. We watch people fight each other as a sport. We watch people fuck on camera for "sensual entertainment." We watch and listen to people say odd, mean, or downright disgusting things for entertainment.

Comedians, whether funny or not, try to come up with things that will amuse and entertain us. Carlos Mencia goes about it the wrong way, but people laugh because his act is controversial, in the "holy shit did he really just say that" sort of way, while Dave Chappelle's act is more about finding something comedic about certain racial truths and stereotypes. Should they be held accountable for their actions on stage? Not anymore than an actor in a movie should be held accountable for killing bad guys, because it's what they do for a living. Should they be held accountable for ACTUALLY saying racist things and in general being a bigot in their public/personal lives? Fuck yes, they should.

Sorry for the confusion, Archbio.

[DFM]

I don't think anyone laughs at Carlos Mencia.

Well maybe at him, I dunno.

[Ecks]

I don't think anyone laughs at Carlos Mencia.

Well maybe at him, I dunno.

I laugh at him. Mostly because he's basically trying to be a Mexican Dave Chappelle and failing miserably at it.

I will also take this opportunity to add that I am by no means a great moral authority. I personally find controversial and offensive comedy humorous, and so my opinion of those who practice such jokes is quite colored.

[Seil]

I will also take this opportunity to add that I am by no means a great moral authority. I personally find controversial and offensive comedy humorous, and so my opinion of those who practice such jokes is quite colored.

Same. I guess that comics are exploiting stereotypes, race and life styles for comedic effect, and that there is a double standard where the n-word is different coming from a white and black person, but I'm still going to laugh at Chris Rock's material. I'm going to laugh not because I dislike black people, white people, gay people or straight people. I'm not laughing because I'm ignorant to what's going on in the world, or because I think that someone deserves to be made fun of.

I'm laughing because I think it's funny.

[Azisien]

Same. I guess that comics are exploiting stereotypes, race and life styles for comedic effect, and that there is a double standard where the n-word is different coming from a white and black person, but I'm still going to laugh at Chris Rock's material. I'm going to laugh not because I dislike black people, white people, gay people or straight people. I'm not laughing because I'm ignorant to what's going on in the world, or because I think that someone deserves to be made fun of.

I'm laughing because I think it's funny.

I think Louis CK's coverage of nigger is quite funny though. He just manages to pull it off, about as tastefully as you can expect Louis CK material to be.

[bluestarultor]

I'm just going to say that even the occasional racist joke can be okay if it's not mean-spirited. Like, I'm not a racist person, but I almost died when a Korean joke slipped out when goofing around with my burgeoning friends group talking about grades (specifically the stereotype Koreans all are expected to get A marks all the time). Luckily, they all laughed, because they're awesome like that, but that's usually not the kind of joke I make in general, and specifically not in public. I didn't actually mean anything bad by it, though. And having had Korean friends in the past, it's actually kind of true. Stereotypes don't get that way without a base.

[Premmy]

Okay, you know what?

Social experiment time.

What is the Joke in this Bit? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPonUwpcs4I)
What's going on here?

This is the sketch that drove Chapelle to quit his show, He was disturbed by the way people were responding to it, Why do you think that is?

[Great Cartoonist]

Well from what I know, Chappelle was getting fed up with the racist jokes which I believe struck a nerve with him. Also, his audience really loved repeating the immortal line "I'm Rick James, bitch!" (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=chappelle)

Also, the whole "fried chikin" meme. Jeebus. Even I don't understand its origins.

[Geminex]

Okay, you know what?

Social experiment time.

What is the Joke in this Bit? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPonUwpcs4I)
What's going on here?

This is the sketch that drove Chapelle to quit his show, He was disturbed by the way people were responding to it, Why do you think that is?

Wat.

What is this?

[Sithdarth]

I'd say that really wasn't the right venue for that kind of joke. That and it went a bit to far. Combine that with the fact that he looked visibly upset and it just sucked all the funny out of it. Might have actually gotten a bit of a laugh if he'd parodied a racial stereotype in an ironic way to get rid of the annoying racial stereotype. Instead the negative reaction just makes it seem like the joke was racist instead of being about racism.

[Archbio]

What I meant to say was, being a comedian is what they do for a living. They go up on stage to say things that make us laugh, to entertain. Now, looking at the sorts of things we watch/participate in to be entertained tells us that we, as a species, are pretty sick. We watch people fight each other as a sport. We watch people fuck on camera for "sensual entertainment." We watch and listen to people say odd, mean, or downright disgusting things for entertainment.

Comedians, whether funny or not, try to come up with things that will amuse and entertain us.

Thanks for the clarification. However, I still think that the spirit of my original ad absurdum argument isn't totally irrelevant even if money wasn't meant to be the focus of it. That's what I've been trying to get across since my original comment. I don't really feel that responsability is transferred away from the agent through the conditions that have made the act possible, no matter at what angle this employement is looked at.

I guess that my original reading (and the phrasing of my response,) does seem to visit more infamy on the comedian, with the whole profit motive aspect. I did read your original argument to me more of a justification through success rather than this shifting of responsability.

Saying that it's the market, the audience, the employer that's ultimately responsible is a lot like the "just following orders" argument*. An individual comedian decided to cater to the lowest common denominator. I don't think the demand is fixed, either.

Also, I think this responds really allows me to put the finger on the thing that's been bothering me the most. It's the "we" and "us" stuff. Society's not a monolith. That there's a substantial (or not) market for something doesn't mean that society, and the whole of its parts, should be considered complicit. Especially since, as I think Premonitions noted, it's really clearer who's making a joke than who's approving of it. Being part of an audience isn't enough, especially in a society where being discriminate in one's tastes and critical about one's sensitivities isn't exactly encouraged.

Should they be held accountable for their actions on stage? Not anymore than an actor in a movie should be held accountable for killing bad guys, because it's what they do for a living.

There's a bit of a difference in the ratio between act and reality there. An actor is pretending to kill bad guys while in reality just miming, which rarely actually kills people. While a comedian who pretends to be verbally abusive can very well be just being verbally abusive. It's words to begin with.

Edit: None of this is to say that I don't think that people who laugh at essentially the recreation of bigottry or verbal abuse on stage aren't asshole.

*Not to evoke the spectre of Godwin's law, and keeping all things in proportion.

[Premmy]

I'd say that really wasn't the right venue for that kind of joke. That and it went a bit to far. Combine that with the fact that he looked visibly upset and it just sucked all the funny out of it. Might have actually gotten a bit of a laugh if he'd parodied a racial stereotype in an ironic way to get rid of the annoying racial stereotype. Instead the negative reaction just makes it seem like the joke was racist instead of being about racism.

Okay, Now, Compare it to this joke. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ4B7G8Rw3Q)

[Sithdarth]

Now that had a completely different feel. Probably some of it because he was saying it himself and not being berated by it. Of course some if it is also they way he's moving and the way he's saying things. The part where he blasts white people and acknowledges the fact that its racist makes it really clear he's going for irony and making a joke about racism and not a racist joke. It goes back to what I said before about not paying attention only to what is said. Divorcing what was said from the events surrounding it does a disservice regardless of the circumstances. It can dull the dickishness of a racist remark or make an otherwise funny commentary on racism sound overtly racists.

[Premmy]

Here's the whole Racist Pixies Sketch. (http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/48511/detail/)

[Premmy]

Kay, I see what you mean. I think we're both adressing the same problem, only in my view "US" are more agressive towards "THEM", want them actively gone and in your view "US" just disregard anyone that isn't "US". Yours might actually be more accurate, since this is less "Hey, let's lynch the black guys!" and more "Hey, let's make jokes about the black guys being black, who cares what they thing?"

Okay, See, that's actually more generous than how I view it, as it takes the time to say "fuck them", it's more like:
guy1: mememememememememeemmeeeeeeemememem*deep breath* MEEEEEEEE!
guy2: Uhhh.. what abou-
guy1: OH I'M SORRY DID'NT HEAR YOU, ARE'NT I AWESOME?
guy2: well.. actually, all this "you" is kinda disadvantaging me, what with me getting no time to-
guy1: I'm the most important one here!
guy2: but-
guy1: FINE! I let you come in the room, listen to me, and you want to whine, you want to sing about us?
guy2: *sigh* yes, but you don't have to be so mean about it.
Guy1:* calls in his brother*
guy2: wai-
Guy1&bro: USSSSSSSSUSUSUSUSUSUUSUSUSUS*Deep breath* USSSSSSSS
Guy2: fuckers.

[Seil]

Also, his audience really loved repeating the immortal line "I'm Rick James, bitch!"

I thought Chapelle was kind of fed up with "Rick James."

Yeah, he said so in one of his DVD's. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VsefY9kWcI&NR=1)

[Premmy]

I Just want to note that noone has stated what the joke of the original bit was.... just sayin'

[DFM]

Well I'd assumed it's about being afraid to do something you enjoy because you're worried you'll be falling into a stereotype, but that wasn't very funny so I wasn't sure I got it.

Edit: Actually if I change the little pixie guys to a stereotype applicable to me, it's pretty funny. So I guess that might be the joke after all. One of those "Ha! I identify with that!" jokes.

[synkr0nized]

Reading the thread title as "Should Canadians Be [...]" is pretty terrific.



Carry on.

[Premmy]

Well I'd assumed it's about being afraid to do something you enjoy because you're worried you'll be falling into a stereotype, but that wasn't very funny so I wasn't sure I got it.

Edit: Actually if I change the little pixie guys to a stereotype applicable to me, it's pretty funny. So I guess that might be the joke after all. One of those "Ha! I identify with that!" jokes.

So that's DFM's take. I want to get some further input from the NPFer's here, what do you think is the Joke In this Sketch?

Racist Pixies Sketch. (http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/48511/detail/)

Don't bother discussing the nature of the joke, or anything like that for the moment, Just tell me what's the punchline here?

[Archbio]

The punchline is that when he thinks he's out, they pull him back in?

[DFM]

lol little dude gets peed on

[Azisien]

He spends the whole sketch trying to avoid choosing the stereotypical fried chicken, and when he finally thinks he's out, oh wait the other choice was also some kind of stereotype everybody laugh!

The alternate punchline was, I think, a mini-Chappelle being small and hyperactive and racist. I can see where that's coming from, because Chappelle's a naturally funny guy, so whether he's talking about bacon or shooting kittens, he could somehow make it slightly humourous.

[Sir Pinkleton]

The hyperbolized stereotype of a black man, complete with yelling? Making Chappelle visibly nervous? Hyperbolizing lots of thing's makes them funnier than they are, or than they should be.

That it is Chappelle helps, yes. I don't like skits like that though, stand up at the mic is always more hilarious.

[Marc v4.0]

I would have to agree that it is funny because it is Chappelle, but also because it is a parody of the silliest racist stereotypes as well. The joke is it's ok to laugh at completely ridiculous bullshit.

[Premmy]

Let's consider that in order to make a joke about racism, you have to pick a specific topic. "lol racism" is..... it's not even a joke. Whereas "man gets tortured by racist sterotypes" is a bit in and of itself.

Chappelle switches between physical slapstick/sexual/obersvational/toilet humor and Black humor in his stand-up act, but on the sketches its generally one over the other.

So, is this Slapstick, Is this Sexual Humor? Is this Toilet Humor? or is it very specifically humor addressing a particular black/asian/latino/white experience?

Is the humor supposed to be in the telling of the joke, or in the joke itself? and if it's in the telling of the joke, why?

[Mirai Gen]

"lol racism" is..... it's not even a joke.
What's really sad is that some people don't know this.

When Noncon did his review of Duane and BrandO and called them out for the misognystic assholes they were, they and many of their fans kept commenting on the site saying "PRFT it's just a JOKE/SARCASM/RIDICULOUS."

It's pretty terrible how they honestly thought that it was funny and none of them believed that it was absolutely awful.

[Funka Genocide]

Well the humor comes in large part from the over the top performance of the pixie, it's pretty much blatant and obvious. The other side of it is, of course, the fact that he's mortified by the possibility of living up to a stereotype, to the point where he consciously tries to avoid it while, in all likelihood, no one around him cares because it's just a food choice.

He's trapped by the concept of a stereotype, a self inflicted victim of racism even when there are no "racists" around. He's not being the victim of any overt harassment or abuse, the existence of these racist paradigms has forced him to be continually self victimized.

This isn't a joke and really isn't funny, which I suppose is the point of the sketch.

The other ones were pretty stupid, and I don't feel they had the same impact. The hispanic one seemed more overtly racist, but maybe that's just because the character in question wasn't treated with the same level of dignity Chapelle had in his sketch. The asian one was just ridiculous, relying more heavily on the pixies over-reaction than any sort of cerebral impact the racist implications had. I didn't get through the white one, but it also seemed unfunny.

But basically, the initial concept in the first sketch seems to have been thrown away and turned into gaudy, ridiculous nonsense for the subsequent sketches.