Politics in Media - The Good, the Bad, and the Preachy

Hilariously, Rob Schneider was recently actually “cancelled”…by the GOP.

I mean, I think it should be said that Jerry Seinfeld wasn't an offensive comic anyway. He makes TV shows about banal observations and movies about bee on human romance.

It seemed pretty clear to me that he was saying that as a pre-emptive strike against anyone who disliked his upcoming movie.

No that’s a Pinocchio you’ve created (I’m not aware of a term for when you take a weak argument made by somebody else and replace it with your own argument that’s more real and legitimate (reverse strawman) so I’m creating a term here).

Read the quoted segment from the msot above your initial one, it’s specifically talking about saying hostile things to peoples faces (insult comedy), not saying genrally funny things that a person might try and gatekeep the funniness of.

I’ll even given a person example. Reginald D. Hunter (US born comedian who now lives in the U.K.) as part of his set makes some jokes that involve using the word retard and suggesting that mentally disabled people have no ability to properly comprehend what’s going on around them, as an autistic person I find said jokes not funny and frankly lazy comedy, there are plenty of good mental disability jokes out there (I make a number myself). Thing is the jokes Reginald D. Hunter makes aren’t insult comedy aimed at the mentally disabled (they’re a part of a wider comedy line about people taking offence for others), they’re just kinda bad jokes.

Edited by Silasw on May 4th 2024 at 10:01:47 AM

I think it's just a classic motte-and-bailey. You press a weak argument and when confronted, retreat to a stronger one and pretend that's the same argument.

But more broadly, i think it's just playing at words at this point. "offensive" comedy is intentionally and openly antagonistic. It's very different from things like observational comedy, or doing a skit, or a bit, etc.

It also need not be at someone's *expense*, that's silly. It feels like we are taking an extremely narrow category of comedy and then trying to make that apply to everything.

It's also not what these comedians are talking about - they're blaming the audience for not being popular anymore despite the, and i cannot stress this enough, absolute vast quantities of comedy that exists literally everywhere.

Why comedians feel uniquely qualified to do so i will probably never understand, but we don't accept this sort of argument with literally any other artistic profession or any other profession for that matter. Builders aren't complaining their costumers don't like brick buildings anymore, painters aren't complaining you can't do impressionism anymore, etc. The only people whining are the losers.

Edited by devak on May 4th 2024 at 11:21:43 AM

There are plenty of people in Film and TV who do blame the audience for the fact that their product wasn’t well received, in the end it’s intellectual snobbery and a sense of entitlement.

The best comedy pushback I saw was from one comedian talking about the group of comedians who constantly attack trans people, they pointed out that such comedians should really understand self-identification and the desire for others to respect that, as they self-identity as comedians and insist we all have to validate said identity.

Potentially, though in my mind that term applies when you’re responsible for both arguments, while in this case it’s someone ‘countering’ pushback to the weak position of a third party with a defence of their own different (but similar looking) position.

Seinfeld was, at the time, the Ur-example of a stand up comic. All of those stereotypes: the suit, jokes about airline food, airline peanuts, the one-hand on the mic other in a pocket stance, they all trace back to his original stand-up routines. I struggle to think of anyone that could've been offended by the material in, like, Telling You For The Last Time. He was as milktoast as they get.

Maybe he was like Bob Saget and kept his blue material away from his public image, but I'm having a hard time seeing that. If only because it was an open secret that Saget's stand-up was as raunchy as it gets.

Edited by Cris_Meyers on May 4th 2024 at 10:07:21 AM

I always thought "reading the room" was one of the core tenants of stand ups anyway. You play to the audience you have and their sensibilities.

Plus, if your goal is to be transgressive and shocking, you can't then wheel around and get annoyed at people for being shocked and offended. That's your goal, isn't it? So go ahead and be provocative. You're not owed praise for it.

Edited by GNinja on May 4th 2024 at 11:14:45 AM

That just made me remember the story about how Chappelle brought Elon Musk on stage.

A recent report about the decline of sex scenes in films has prompted conversations about whether or not this is a good thing.

Reasons cited for this change include:

• Audiences preferring movies that either don't feature sexual content or handle it in more subtle ways.

• Sex scenes likely having a negative impact on a film's global release.

• Intimacy coordinators and actors speaking out about how uncomfortable they've felt about sex scenes.

I'll also add that there's more sex on tv now than before. And while someday attribute a reduction of sex scenes to puritanism, I think many downplay how exploitative and unnecessary they often are and ignore the industry's long history of mistreatment of actors.

In other words:

"It's violence on movies and sex on tv"

But where are those good old-fashioned values on which we used to rely?

Lucky we got Poor Things.

Puritanism mostly justifies its stance by opposing "exploitation" (in the broad sense). It is not like they tell people "ban this, because we don't like it".

That doesn't necessarily mean that less sex scenes is because of puritanism. That's the same allegation thrown around when a female character from a comic or video game is redesigned with a more modest outfit.

New decades, new names for the old things... (Puritans were not the first, too.)

Edited by Smeagol17 on May 5th 2024 at 3:32:04 PM

"Hollywood has a harder time getting away with exploitation today" does seem like a more sensible explanation than "Everyone's a bunch of prudes now".

Doesn't exactly disprove my point.

Yeah, I don't see how an industry that released Euphoria, Challengers, The 50 Shades movies, You is cowtowing to prudes.

I think my thing with sex scenes is that I just don't get them? I don't particularly think about the exploitation angle personally.

Like, when a sex scene is happening, what am I meant to be enjoying?

Edited by GNinja on May 5th 2024 at 1:08:27 PM

I’m similarly unable to assess the ramifications, as I’ve only ever found sex scenes to reduce my enjoyment of a film.

It should be pointed out that Penn Badgley (Joe from You) got internet backlash for asking to reduce the amount of sex scenes he had.

As someone who appreciates sex scenes (though rarely because I find them titillating, I just think they are a nice... climax to building relationships and can make for enjoyable drama and/or comedy) and often think they improve works, I also don't mind them being reduced either. What matters is that the actors know what the role will entail and are comfortable with the extent of it. I'd much rather have an actor who is perfect for a role with a sex-scene (that can be removed without too much of an impact, or even just removed all the rudey bits) but is uncomfortable with that sex scene and therefore that gets removed/less explicit, then a sex-scene is kept at the expense of either the actor or the actor's mental health.

Edited by king15 on May 5th 2024 at 2:19:23 PM

And that was a white, heterosexual male actor. Just imagine if a woman minority or lgbt actor had said that and was the one getting hate for it.

A lot of problems when it comes to offensive humor comes from the intent behind it. People are actually pretty good at feeling out the intention of a joke when it is told. Something most every conservative and right wing comedian doesn't understand. A lot of the time the joke is just "I hate this minority, everyone in the room agrees that gay people are disgusting amiright!?" Nor do they ever let themselves be a target of a joke. If that is all you got, people aren't going to laugh and are going to examine the joke and be offended or find it boring. I have ADHD and I make "ADHD people are easily distracted" jokes with my family, (most often my spouse) a lot but if I see jokes about my condition in conservative comedy the punchline is that "this mental condition is not real" or "we should get those annoying bastards out of modern society and lock em up in the asylums."

I'm too bored with them to be offended, but I also know I don't want to be around people who cheer for those sets of jokes instead of laughing at the type of ones I make.

Let me try this if this joke is to your taste.

How many people with ADHD are required to change a lightbulb? Two, one to change it, but the other forgets to hold the stairs and focuses on random things.

-hurls rotten fruit-

While there are exceptions to that rule, I definitely think that applies to a lot of cases.

An example would for me would be Brandon Rogers. Part of the point of his content is that it is as offensive as possible, and I certainly get why it's not for everyone and why a lot of people might be offended, but for me, it's not offensive because it's clear that Rogers doesn't believe the negative stereotypes he's portraying, or the offensive jokes he makes, and that's part of what makes it funny. It also helps that he's willing to make fun of groups he's part of as well, like Americans, gay people, and gay Americans.

Edited by king15 on May 5th 2024 at 10:31:52 AM