i think comedians spent so much time of their lives telling jokes and obviously dealing with comedy that most if not all of the regular jokes aren’t really funny to them anymore, and i think that that’s why they embrace the ‘absurd’ and shocking jokes with minorities and all of that. i don’t think it’s fucked up because it means that if they’re making the joke it means that they too think it’s absurd and shocking.
There’s a way to tell a joke about shocking subject matter in either good or bad nature. (Saying people have “downs syndrome” as an insult is obviously just in poor taste, and honestly not even a joke.)
i highly doubt comedians think of ‘down syndrome’ as an actual insult. it’s funny to some because assholes and stupid people would use it as an insult. so the comedian is indirectly making fun of those people.
It depends on the context of the joke. In this scenario, where the context is seemingly a sincere apology, it definitely does not come across as anything but rude and uncaring.
do you think that what happened to james gunn, for example, was fair?
The situations are simply not analogous. I wouldn’t have had a problem with the Tonight Show cancelling a James Gunn appearance the day after those jokes resurfaced.
regarding this specific discussion - dom, i don’t think mfm and handman are defending that the ‘metoo’ movement should end, just that the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ thing is terrible if the accused person is in fact proven innocent. i think that was norm’s point. i’m pretty sure everyone who’s not a sexual predator agrees that it’s great that all these rapists are getting what they deserve. the problem here is with the ones that don’t deserve.
You’re talking about a legal matter - “guilty until proven innocent,” but this merely the court of public opinion. The reason why comments like Norm’s are misguided (at best) is they ignore the fact that most of these people suffer quite minimally in the long run (the whole thing about “career being over” is largely a myth), so all the comments really serve to do is to disparage those who are the victims (who rarely if ever get any actual justice) and dissuade them from speaking out, for fear that they will be either ignored or outright attached because they don’t have enough “evidence.”
i agree with you that this attitude is making victims more encouraged to speak out because it means that something is going to happen, but i think it gives them too much power. at this point anyone could claim anything about anyone and we’d be throwing stones at the accused even if whatever he’s being accused of is bullshit. that’s a problem. i don’t know a better way to handle these matters but i don’t think what’s happening is ideal either. a lot of people suck and a lot of people lie, so it’s always a possibility. i’m glad it’s rarely the case, but who knows where it’ll go next.
Victims should be allowed to speak out period. There shouldn’t be any “but”s after that.