TV: SNL: Season 45 Murphy to Host: Shane Gilis hired/fired

[bleedblue1223]

I think we're going in circles, but I'll try and move on.

Looking further up on your list of statements on what shouldn't be controversial, how do you decide what is or isn't a controversial statement?

If someone broadcasts an opinion that has people are divided on and passionate about, it risks being controversial. If you're a celebrity, you generally leverage your popularity to make money on the entertainment industry. It's only reasonable that an unpopular opinion might negatively affect you.

Yeah, I knew the conversation wouldn't be productive with ArGarBarGar from the beginning. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say you have similar views as they do.

 

[discostu]

Yeah, I knew the conversation wouldn't be productive with ArGarBarGar from the beginning. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say you have similar views as they do.

My views on this topic I'm stating as plainly as I can. If you wish to engage in a dialogue, I'd prefer you do the same.

 

[bleedblue1223]

My views on this topic I'm stating as plainly as I can. If you wish to engage in a dialogue, I'd prefer you do the same.

I have been, but we are either talking past each other or talking in circles. When there is a fundamental disagreement, it's hard to have productive dialogue. That's where this has been for more than a few posts.

Instead of countering examples of outrage/cancel culture going too far, it just got into semantics. For the dialogue to be worthwhile, it would get way too political.

 

[K Fleur]

This has to be the most discussion/attention SNL has gotten in at minimum a decade

 

[bleedblue1223]

This has to be the most discussion/attention SNL has gotten in at minimum a decade

Probably why they hired him knowing his background.

 

[discostu]

I have been, but we are either talking past each other or talking in circles. When there is a fundamental disagreement, it's hard to have productive dialogue. That's where this has been for more than a few posts.

To trying and bring this to something close to a neutral ground;

My view on it is irrelevant to the actual political views that anyone may hold. I have my own political views that shape who's opinion I find valid, but in general, I feel that celebrities need to own their comments.

People listen to celebrities. They probably shouldn't, but it's part of our society. They influence what products to buy and what entertainment to consume. Celebrities are compensated in part by how much they are liked.

If you hold a political opinion, I feel you have choices. You can broadcast it if you feel passionate about it. If you do, you need to own the reaction
You shouldn't have to live through abuse or threats, and unfortunately, that's proving hard to stop, but, if people that liked you before don't like you know, and don't value your art, that's unfortunate, but, the reality. You may also pick up new fans because of it.

You can also stay quiet and neutral, and value your privacy on these matters. You get less headlines, but also less grief.

My observation is that many complaining about cancel culture are complaining that their broadcasted opinions are not popular and is hurting their popularity. When it occurs to a celebrity I agree with, I do get annoyed, but my annoyance is that the opinion that I presumably share is more unpopular than not. My issue is with the general society sentiment.

I hope that's clear. If we're still on completely different understandings, I'm okay if we both agree to walk away.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

That is definitely an opinion, especially on the 1st one.

It's an "opinion" backed by the Mayo Clinic.

 

[bleedblue1223]

My observation is that many complaining about cancel culture are complaining that their broadcasted opinions are not popular and is hurting their popularity. When it occurs to a celebrity I agree with, I do get annoyed, but my annoyance is that the opinion that I presumably share is more unpopular than not. My issue is with the general society sentiment.

I hope that's clear. If we're still on completely different understandings, I'm okay if we both agree to walk away.

For me the issue is when the opinion being bashed is the more popular one. I'd bet the majority of people out there would say a 3 year old does not know enough yet to determine their gender. They are not able to fully understand what that means. Mario Lopez should not face any backlash for that IMO.

Lets take Al Franken. He should be criticized for some of the things he did, but in context, it was a clear political attack and he should not have resigned. His accuser did similar things to Robin Williams on the tour they did. They both crossed a line, but those were the sketches they were doing. Outrage was from the Left and Right on that one.

Now Kaepernick. He knew what he was doing was controversial, but people took the outrage too far. In the beginning Kaep originally was sitting, but after talking to a vet he decided to kneel. Just how people will ignore Gillis talking to Andrew Yang, people forget that part about Kap.

Whenever cancel/outrage culture gets discussed I feel too many just assume it's the right getting upset at the woke left. Both sides have issues with it, as victims and as offenders.

 

[bleedblue1223]

It's an "opinion" backed by the Mayo Clinic.

How many 3 year olds have they interviewed to discuss the complexities of gender identity?

 

[ArGarBarGar]

How many 3 year olds have they interviewed to discuss the complexities of gender identity?

I can 100% attest it is more than either you or Mario Lopez. Do you think they just pulled that determination out of their behind or something?

That children can identify their preferred gender around age 3 or 4 is well established and accepted in medical science, I am not sure why you are pushing back so hard against it. You are literally arguing from personal incredulity.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I can 100% attest it is more than either you or Mario Lopez. Do you think they just pulled that determination out of their behind or something?

That children can identify their preferred gender around age 3 or 4 is well established and accepted in medical science, I am not sure why you are pushing back so hard against it. You are literally arguing from personal incredulity.

I'm not with you that it's well established and accepted. Ruby Rose is one example, and I can cite sources too, but probably best to just leave it be.

 

[Hasbro]

When I saw the podcast I would have though even less of SNL than I currently do, especially with the optics of his jokes and them hiring their first ever Asian full-time cast member. And many others commented on this as well.

Surprisingly enough public perception can be a very important aspect when it comes to media that is so large in scope. To act like people who say ridiculously ****ty things should never suffer some kind of consequence for it is ridiculous to me. This have existed long before Twitter was a thing, so calling it some "cancel culture" is way off the mark. Don Imus lost his radio job before Twitter really took off, and that is only an example I know off the top of my head.

Howard Cosell and MNF in the 80's

 

[zombie kopitar]

I can 100% attest it is more than either you or Mario Lopez. Do you think they just pulled that determination out of their behind or something?

That children can identify their preferred gender around age 3 or 4 is well established and accepted in medical science, I am not sure why you are pushing back so hard against it. You are literally arguing from personal incredulity.

Well we've all been 3 bro, and if you would have asked me at 3 years old if I could identify as a boy, girl or train. I would want to identify as a train 100%

I don't really have an opinion about Shane Gillis or a lot of what's being discussed ITT. But I will say there are people being smug and someone who isn't.

 

[KMart27]

Does this mean no more Alec Baldwin?

 

[TheBeastCoast]

I can 100% attest it is more than either you or Mario Lopez. Do you think they just pulled that determination out of their behind or something?

That children can identify their preferred gender around age 3 or 4 is well established and accepted in medical science, I am not sure why you are pushing back so hard against it. You are literally arguing from personal incredulity.

This might be slightly off topic....or it isn't I really have no idea. But anyone that let's their children "transition" at an extremely young age(Charlize Theron) it is straight up being a bad parent. If you got a 4 year old boy that likes to put on makeup and play with dolls....let that 4 year old boy put on makeup and play with dolls. There isn't enough research that could be presented to me that would convince me genetically transitioning small children is a right and good thing to do. Nobody can justify it. Let a 4 year old make a decision that will affect literally the rest of their life when there is the chance they might not want that change by the time they are 13 lol.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

This might be slightly off topic....or it isn't I really have no idea. But anyone that let's their children "transition" at an extremely young age(Charlize Theron) it is straight up being a bad parent. If you got a 4 year old boy that likes to put on makeup and play with dolls....let that 4 year old boy put on makeup and play with dolls. There isn't enough research that could be presented to me that would convince me genetically transitioning small children is a right and good thing to do. Nobody can justify it. Let a 4 year old make a decision that will affect literally the rest of their life when there is the chance they might not want that change by the time they are 13 lol.

They don't start to actually transition at that age. Like, transitioning is way off into the future, and there are many less invasive steps prior to that point.

 

[Stylizer1]

Has Colin Kaepernick been a victim of cancel culture too? Or does that only go one way.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Man, that's so good.

"Cancel" is such a loaded and inaccurate term. Shane Gillis, who is now more well known than ever and carrying just enough a whiff of martyrdom to probably capitalize on it, will be able to continue his career just like Kathy Griffin, Mario Lopez, James Gunn, Kevin Hart, Alec Baldwin, Chris Pratt and pretty much all the other examples here.... Well, except Colin Kaepernick, of course.

But it also should be repeated (as someone noted it above) that losing a job because you said some dumb shit isn't a new phenomenon. See Howard Cossell, Jimmy the Greek, Bill Maher all of whom lost jobs before Twitter was even a gleam in its creator's eye. Maher, for what it's worth, has clearly survived as well.

Honestly, I'm wracking my brain here and truly the best examples of people who've been "cancelled" because of their words/beliefs are Kaepernick (which I think is mostly BS, but will concede some of his demands may have been unrealistic) and Roseanne and Paula Deen, to whom I say good riddance.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

I've always found that ridiculous. "Joking" doesn't give you carte blanche to say whatever the heck you want with absolutely zero consequences.

3. I wish the "offensive" argument would be reframed as simply "not funny." I'm not denying that it's offensive to some, but comedians can get away with pushing boundaries when they're actually funny and clever about it. Part of the issue to me is that these jokes and impressions in Gillis case are just basic, lame, low-hanging fruit. 10-year-olds know how to swap their L's for R's and do an Asian "impersonation." It's both insulting AND not funny. It makes no clever point. It doesn't advance any discussion or make you think. It's lame and dumb. If you're going to be "edgy" and "push boundaries" have an actual damn edge, have a thought you want to convey beyond "durrr, these people speak this way."

Yes.

7. Being offensive is basically Anthony Jeselnik's brand. But he doesn't catch flack (or nearly the flack of some others). I'd argue it's because he's actually funny.

Also this. People act like you can't do boundary-pushing comedy anymore. No. It just has to actually be thoughtful comedy, not verbal diarrhea. Have any of the people getting so offended about the Gillis firing even listened to the podcast episode in question? Which again is from all the way back in..oh yeah, literally last year. Aside from the racist stuff, there are also these gems, which I'm taking from a CNN article written about the incident:

Shane Gillis isn't a writer, he's a stand-up comedian. And he "knows" from his mere 10 years in the business, as he says on the podcast, "stand-up sucks. Everybody that's good at it s****ed somebody's d*** to get there... If you're actually smart and funny, you f****** washout. Cause you're like, 'Well, I'm not a f****t, so I'm not gonna do this.'" He "knows" that comedians who do material about depression are "gayer than ISIS" and doesn't like it that "white f****t comics" complain that they are "sad because life's hard."

If I were him I'd almost just say "yes, these are my actual opinions," because as a comedian, I wouldn't want that passing off as what I think is "comedy."

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

How would I know? I know it's a forced apology because they obviously didn't mean it.

Chris Pratt actively supports and gives money to a church that is openly homophobic and has a history of conversation therapy, the latter of which is abhorrent. I wasn't even aware of any other stuff he was catching flack for. Denouncing that should be easy enough, yet he refuses to do it.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Chris Pratt actively supports and gives money to a church that is openly homophobic and has a history of conversation therapy, the latter of which is abhorrent. I wasn't even aware of any other stuff he was catching flack for. Denouncing that should be easy enough, yet he refuses to do it.

I wouldn't say he refuses to do it. Maybe you say he's deep down the rabbit hole and genuinely believes they are welcoming to all people. A lot of people that go to many different churches are in that category. It's not like it's the Westboro Baptist Church though. Yes, conversion therapy is abhorrent.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

I wouldn't say he refuses to do it. Maybe you say he's deep down the rabbit hole and genuinely believes they are welcoming to all people. A lot of people that go to many different churches are in that category. It's not like it's the Westboro Baptist Church though. Yes, conversion therapy is abhorrent.

Oh, yeah, he's definitely a little whacked-out as it pertains to the first point you brought up. Whether or not people who are in those situations are 100% responsible for their choices/opinions is certainly up for debate. He seems like an intelligent enough of a guy to be able to think for himself (I usually give good comedic actors a bit more benefit of the doubt, since I believe you need to be a bit more tuned into human behavior / intelligence to effectively nail comedy), so I'm not as forgiving as some would be in this situation.

 

[John Price]

Shane Gillis jokes about 'SNL' firing, Asians and 'funny' Trump assassination at NYC show

 

[blueandgoldguy]

This discussion about actors surviving/continuing to thrive following racist jokes/stand-up routine has me thinking back to Sarah Silverman in 1999 or so. She used the C-word for Chinese people...can't remember if it was in a stand-up routine or discussion panel. She was taken to task on a talk show/panel afterwards by a fellow who was Asian...he might have been Chinese himself. I'm not sure what her explanation was for using this racial epithet or her apology but it appeared to work as her career never suffered by the looks of things.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Shane Gillis jokes about 'SNL' firing, Asians and 'funny' Trump assassination at NYC show

For comedians that like to claim that they're edgy or risk-takers, they sure do seem to have a problem with anything less than full acceptance.