- Time
- Post link
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.
i wasn’t talking about norm’s case since i haven’t read anything about it, or any other specific case for that matter. i’m talking in more general terms. and you haven’t really answered if you think that what happened to james gunn was fair.
Collipso, not every situation is the same so I’ve never said anything about a one size fits all solution. Comedians with a voice have a power that comes with responsibility. If they punch down and further harmful mindsets, they should be aware that their audiences might not like it. We should be careful when policing art but just because you’re making “art” doesn’t give you a get out of jail free card for doing and saying any manner of terrible and harmful things.
We were talking about Norm so I gave my thoughts on his case, where I felt the recompense (something incredibly minor) was easily justified. Gunn is a very different situation and does not seem to be very well justified (I’ve talked about this before at length).