Stand Up Comedians

[RockLobster]

Not necessarily. It could be something people were aware of and decide to bring it up to bring that mindset to light. But in the James Gunn case we have a literal case of someone who doesn't actually believe the cause they are fighting for bringing up tweets that were already acknowledged and trying to use it against them a second time.

This idea that "woke" people are looking at comics (white and male) and trying to search deep down for racist stuff because of some bad faith reason (they hate white people?) is such a ridiculous concept that people seem to have taken as fact immediately.

And this is being brought up again because of someone like Shane Gillis? Really?

Based on the amount of posts someone's made in this and the SNL thread about Shane Gillis, I'd say the answer is a resounding yes.

 

[Beau Knows]

Can we not criticize any comments a person makes if they are a comedian? Seems like comedians are trying to put themselves on some sacred cow territory because they make jokes.

Comedians talk about taking risks in their comedy, but, the outcome of those risks is that it may create roadblocks for you. If you automatically get a pass by claiming you took a risk, it's not really a risk.

These are two excellent points. Comedians aren't immune from criticism, and if they want to take risks they will have to deal with the criticism and potentially the fact that not everyone will want to hire them.

Not that applies in this case though, as Gillis wasn't even making a joke.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Bringing it up to discuss the implications behind SNL hiring their first full-time Asian comedian and hiring a guy who makes racist comments about Asian people at the same time isn't a "bad faith" discussion. Whether SNL did a check is irrelevant. If they didn't, they are incompetent. If they did and hired him anyway, they are worthy of criticism.

Can we not criticize any comments a person makes if they are a comedian? Seems like comedians are trying to put themselves on some sacred cow territory because they make jokes.

Criticism is fine, but I think it's a bit naive to think that cancel culture isn't a big thing right now or to assume that the people behind it have good faith motivations. When even Jim Jefferies speaks out against it, you have it think it's gone a little too far. I view bad faith as wanting someone fired or cancelled instead of reformed or given a chance to learn. If the goal is to have less racism, then that should be the goal. Right now, people just want to get rid of things that they don't agree with. We've seen it with Cernovich and right-wing digging up old stuff on Gunn to counter what they saw as left-wing activists going after people on the right. I don't think we should just assume that Gunn was in bad-faith and others are in good-faith. Gunn was in bad faith, and so are plenty of others.

Companies right now are terrified of twitter mobs. If someone doesn't bring in enough money to counter the distraction, then they are gone.

 

[John Price]

It happens everywhere, even sports. A San Jose Sharks blogger/reporter originally from Winnipeg did it to Binnington in the first round. It's happened to others that bring up tweets from high school. I just don't know what the good faith motivations are. Do people seriously believe that SNL didn't do a background check on Gillis.

Yup. They knew what they were getting into. Then, when the fervor and outrage happened from people who had never heard of him before except for the clips, they had no spine and dropped him just like that.

The tweets I posted in the SNL thread are very astute observations regarding the issue.

 

[John Price]

Criticism is fine, but I think it's a bit naive to think that cancel culture isn't a big thing right now or to assume that the people behind it have good faith motivations. When even Jim Jefferies speaks out against it, you have it think it's gone a little too far. I view bad faith as wanting someone fired or cancelled instead of reformed or given a chance to learn. If the goal is to have less racism, then that should be the goal. Right now, people just want to get rid of things that they don't agree with. We've seen it with Cernovich and right-wing digging up old stuff on Gunn to counter what they saw as left-wing activists going after people on the right. I don't think we should just assume that Gunn was in bad-faith and others are in good-faith. Gunn was in bad faith, and so are plenty of others.

Companies right now are terrified of twitter mobs. If someone doesn't bring in enough money to counter the distraction, then they are gone.

Athletes are even victim too as McAvoy (person dredged up old tweets saying he didn't want to play for the Bruins ever), Trea Turner and Josh Hader were embroiled in social media scandals. Honestly this internet twitter mob out to "get justice" (for who? Who is offended?) and speak on behalf of "the offended" is getting out of control. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you don't have to like Shane Gillis, then don't listen or don't watch. Starting a mob just because his "comedy" doesn't agree with your bland inoffensive comedy is not the way to go around things. There's a reason nearly every comic has stood up for him and his right to free speech.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Athletes are even victim too as McAvoy (person dredged up old tweets saying he didn't want to play for the Bruins ever), Trea Turner and Josh Hader were embroiled in social media scandals. Honestly this internet twitter mob out to "get justice" (for who? Who is offended?) and speak on behalf of "the offended" is getting out of control. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you don't have to like Shane Gillis, then don't listen or don't watch. Starting a mob just because his "comedy" doesn't agree with your bland inoffensive comedy is not the way to go around things. There's a reason nearly every comic has stood up for him and his right to free speech.

Yeah, happened with Binnington in the 1st round.

People have tried with Chris Pratt, but he's too big a star for Hollywood to kick out and the stuff twitter has tried to get him on is pretty weak.

 

[John Price]

Yeah, happened with Binnington in the 1st round.

Last I'll say because this thread is supposed to be about proper stand up comics but these people these days have nothing better to do than search everyone's social media history no matter what their job is. Performer, comic, athlete, actor, DIRECTOR, etc. The one that angers me the most is Gunn because he literally did not do anything and Disney because of their family friendly image decided to can him. Like, he didn't do anything. His cast strongly advocated for his return and when he did so a great injustice was righted.

People honestly need to find better hobbies to do with their time than scour every single person's internet history and taking offense to one or two things someone might have said on a podcast. Heck, if that's the case, everyone on Joe Rogan's podcast needs to be "vetted" so to speak. Were you in your right state of mind when you appeared on Rogan's podcast? What did you say? Did you say this which might offend some person? Smh.







Tim Dillon on Twitter

 

[Zeppo]

So which one is it?

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Yeah, happened with Binnington in the 1st round.

People have tried with Chris Pratt, but he's too big a star for Hollywood to kick out and the stuff twitter has tried to get him on is pretty weak.

I like how "I think this person's opinion on something is bad and I want to discuss it" is considered "I want this person to be fired and for them to never hold a job again!"

Like, nobody can criticize celebrities, now? Shane Gillis said a bunch of stupid racist stuff on a podcast and got called out for it, and SNL fired him for it. Boo hoo.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I like how "I think this person's opinion on something is bad and I want to discuss it" is considered "I want this person to be fired and for them to never hold a job again!"

Like, nobody can criticize celebrities, now?

Criticism is fine, but a twitter mob going after someone individually or going after advertisers or their employer with the intention of them losing their job is a problem. It especially bad when it's not even across the board. Another person could do the same thing and not face the twitter mob outrage.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Criticism is fine, but a twitter mob going after someone individually or going after advertisers or their employer with the intention of them losing their job is a problem.

What do you define as a "twitter mob going after someone"?

People inside and outside the business criticized the hiring. Of all things to get on a tirade about "twitter mobs RUINING careers", this is probably the dumbest place to bring it up.

 

[bleedblue1223]

What do you define as a "twitter mob going after someone"?

People inside and outside the business criticized the hiring. Of all things to get on a tirade about "twitter mobs RUINING careers", this is probably the dumbest place to bring it up.

And people inside and outside liked it as well. I'm talking more in general of cancel culture, you're the one who is saying that cancel culture as a whole isn't a big deal. I'm responding to it as a whole.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

And people inside and outside liked it as well. I'm talking more in general of cancel culture, you're the one who is saying that cancel culture as a whole isn't a big deal. I'm responding to it as a whole.

It isn't. How many careers have been ruined by "cancel culture"?

Also if someone in the business thinks something is racist, then is he also a part of cancel culture, or maybe there are actual legitimate problems with the hiring that deserve to be addressed and point out the absurdity that someone like that was hired to a public show that reaches millions of people in the first place?

These vague terms are left vague so that any specific situation can be tied to the term and be used as evidence that it is ruining something.

 

[bleedblue1223]

If you don't like something, just don't watch it. If enough people don't like it, then it will be cancelled on its own.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

I finally watched Burr's new special. I enjoyed it a lot. Better than his last few, but not the heights of his early stuff which are all timers for me. Solid bounce back for him IMO.

 

[Shareefruck]

To me the issue with cancel culture is when it prematurely (and in some cases, permanently) ends the conversation before it can even start. The issue with cancel culture isn't that it prevents people from being able to get away with saying anything and everything without having to even engage in or consider the conversation. That's a crazy thing to defend.

Freedom of speech should give you a lot of leeway, but it shouldn't protect borderline hate speech. I mean, there is a line that can be crossed. If, hypothetically, a comedian created a wildly popular show where they just pull up pictures of black people and proclaimed that they're n*****s to the audience's laughter, surely no proponent of free speech would say "it's just a joke, let people vote with their wallet." "Jokes" still need to be defensible and accountable to a point. The only thing that should separate jokes from speech is that reasonable joke comprehension is a little more difficult to parse than reasonable reading/listening comprehension. Merely BEING a joke alone isn't enough to excuse what is communicated. What the joke actually is matters the most, and I haven't heard any interpretation of Gillis' "jokes" that actually clears him of anything.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

To me the issue with cancel culture is when it prematurely (and in some cases, permanently) ends the conversation before it can even start. The issue with cancel culture isn't that it prevents people from being able to get away with saying anything and everything without having to even engage in or consider the conversation. That's a crazy thing to defend.

Freedom of speech should give you a lot of leeway, but it shouldn't protect borderline hate speech. I mean, there is a line that can be crossed. If, hypothetically, a comedian created a wildly popular show where they just pull up pictures of black people and proclaimed that they're n*****s to the audience's laughter, surely no proponent of free speech would say "it's just a joke, let people vote with their wallet." "Jokes" still need to be defensible and accountable to a point. The only thing that should separate jokes from speech is that reasonable joke comprehension is a little more difficult to parse than reasonable reading/listening comprehension. Merely BEING a joke alone isn't enough to excuse what is communicated. What the joke actually is matters the most, and I haven't heard any interpretation of Gillis' "jokes" that actually clears him of anything.

It's why I think discussions last a long time regarding the issue. There is plenty to debate and potential grey area's. I mean from your post the first thing that popped into my head was the Michael Richards incident. I would like to assume that there is nothing to even talk about in regards to it.

 

[Stylizer1]

So who's the moral arbiter on what's acceptable then?

People are either free to push the artistic boundaries of comedy or there not, this bad actor argument to justify attacking and platforming people you or the mob decide is offensive based on something as subjective as comedy is the argument bad actors use to stop people pushing against social norms and taboos

It's completely illiberal and having people subjectively censor artistic freedom is incredibly puritanical, it's the type of argument I'd expect out of the religious right

I believe you meant they're.

 

[bleedblue1223]

You may not find it funny but humour like taking offense is in the eye of the beholder and instead of people ignoring what they find offensive or just turning it off were now in the position where people are hounded mercilessly for it, especially on social media and the more far left media outlets, funnily enough by people who complain relentlessly about online harassment



So who's the moral arbiter on what's acceptable then?

People are either free to push the artistic boundaries of comedy or there not, this bad actor argument to justify attacking and platforming people you or the mob decide is offensive based on something as subjective as comedy is the argument bad actors use to stop people pushing against social norms and taboos

It's completely illiberal and having people subjectively censor artistic freedom is incredibly puritanical, it's the type of argument I'd expect out of the religious right

To me there is no difference between the woke PC and the religious right. Both take their moral stances too far and force it onto others.

 

[discostu]

Good points on the above (Shareefruck) , and I'd also add that comedians also have to accept that audiences may interpret the joke very differently than they do.

You can push boundaries, and provide a defense of the joke, but ultimately, you have to accept that people are going to have their own views of it.

I hate the reflexive response by a comedian that a joke they said isn't racist. It's a pretty meaningless statement, as, if we only considered jokes to be racist for which the performer acknowledges it as such, we would not have any racist jokes.

There is room for jokes that deal with race, or any other sensitive topic. It's not easy, and you will face criticism, and will probably not get you universal acceptance.

I don't think this is a new thing. There's always been tough topics to attack,and what's acceptable will change.

Comedy is a hard game, and the fact that any clip you have will live online forever makes it harder. It's also competitive, so if you're going to take those risks, you really do need to be making a point, and have more hits than misses.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Athletes are even victim too as McAvoy (person dredged up old tweets saying he didn't want to play for the Bruins ever), Trea Turner and Josh Hader were embroiled in social media scandals. Honestly this internet twitter mob out to "get justice" (for who? Who is offended?) and speak on behalf of "the offended" is getting out of control. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you don't have to like Shane Gillis, then don't listen or don't watch. Starting a mob just because his "comedy" doesn't agree with your bland inoffensive comedy is not the way to go around things. There's a reason nearly every comic has stood up for him and his right to free speech.

This might be the worst twitter comment you've shared. What a cowardly, bitch-made statement. The idea that a comedian can't be racist because he knows he's being recorded is so incredibly dumb and dare I say, privileged, that I'm flabbergasted. What a manipulative statement.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

So which one is it?

I don't think you're going to get an answer on that one.

 

[Trap Jesus]

Was this in reference to the Chappelle/transgender thing? Norton is one of the only comedians I've seen that walks the line between transgender acceptance/support but also supporting nothing in comedy being off limits.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Athletes are even victim too as McAvoy (person dredged up old tweets saying he didn't want to play for the Bruins ever), Trea Turner and Josh Hader were embroiled in social media scandals. Honestly this internet twitter mob out to "get justice" (for who? Who is offended?) and speak on behalf of "the offended" is getting out of control. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you don't have to like Shane Gillis, then don't listen or don't watch. Starting a mob just because his "comedy" doesn't agree with your bland inoffensive comedy is not the way to go around things. There's a reason nearly every comic has stood up for him and his right to free speech.

Okay, fair game. Can you deconstruct the Gillis jokes for us? How is it a joke? And by the way, no comedian's free speech was impacted. As far as I know, he wasn't arrested. He just got fired from a high-profile gig. He wasn't entitled to it. I can guarantee you if public recordings surface of me making racist comments and make a wave, I'm losing my job too. And I'm nobody.

 

[Shareefruck]

Good points on the above (Shareefruck) , and I'd also add that comedians also have to accept that audiences may interpret the joke very differently than they do.

You can push boundaries, and provide a defense of the joke, but ultimately, you have to accept that people are going to have their own views of it.

I hate the reflexive response by a comedian that a joke they said isn't racist. It's a pretty meaningless statement, as, if we only considered jokes to be racist for which the performer acknowledges it as such, we would not have any racist jokes.

There is room for jokes that deal with race, or any other sensitive topic. It's not easy, and you will face criticism, and will probably not get you universal acceptance.

I don't think this is a new thing. There's always been tough topics to attack,and what's acceptable will change.

Comedy is a hard game, and the fact that any clip you have will live online forever makes it harder. It's also competitive, so if you're going to take those risks, you really do need to be making a point, and have more hits than misses.

I think that the implication that jokes that can merely be interpreted in an offensive way justifies criticism but not cancellation. When it comes to something like the latter, all I need from the comedian is actual plausible deniability and an argument that can be fathomably viewed as sincere (that or an expression of regret if it can't be argued), even if it's ultimately tasteless or doesn't reflect the absolute truth, which shouldn't matter, IMO.

To me, Gunn's clearly qualifies as this (it would qualify even if he didn't apologize for it-- In fact, 90% of the time, I wish they wouldn't-- If you can defend why it's a joke that doesn't communicate what was perceived, apologizing for it anyways is a contradictory admission of guilt that makes no sense whatsoever). Gillis' doesn't at all-- He just disingenuously hides behind a lazy, catch all defense that's supposedly immune to everything and that doesn't require any thought or accountability whatsoever, and he adds indignation on top of that.