Stand Up Comedians

[discostu]

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/innocent, 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 while Gillis' doesn't. 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.

I don't think a standard definition of what constitutes "cancellation" is feasible, as every platform has different criteria.

Edgy race material is far more likely to get you fired as host of the Teen Choice Awards for example, than getting removed from one of the comedy central celebrity roasts.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't think a standard definition of what constitutes "cancellation" is feasible, as every platform has different criteria.

Edgy race material is far more likely to get you fired as host of the Teen Choice Awards for example, than getting removed from one of the comedy central celebrity roasts.

That's currently the case, but I don't know that I would argue that it should be, based solely on relative degree of sensitivity (which I find irrelevant), personally. I think I would side with the anti-cancel culture side of the argument when it comes to that.

If someone hosted the Teen Choice Awards and it was revealed that they said something in their past was "too racy and controversial for the Teen Choice Awards" but is still totally defensible as not being hateful speech, I wouldn't agree with that person being fired.

 

[Pilky01]

I genuinely feel like Gunn's "pre-woke" internet behavior was f***ing abhorrent and he deserved all the blowback and more. But Film Twitter is very loud and they love Gunn so speaking ill of him is construed as support for Mike Cernovich.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I genuinely feel like Gunn's "pre-woke" internet behavior was ****ing abhorrent and he deserved all the blowback and more. But Film Twitter is very loud and they love Gunn so speaking ill of him is construed as support for Mike Cernovich.

And I'm totally fine with him directing at Disney again, just don't like all the hypocritical takes on it.

 

[discostu]

That's currently the case, but I don't know that I would argue that it should be, based solely on relative degree of sensitivity (which I find irrelevant), personally. I think I would side with the anti-cancel culture side of the argument when it comes to that.

If someone hosted the Teen Choice Awards and it was revealed that they said something in their past was "too racy and controversial for the Teen Choice Awards" but is still totally defensible as not being hateful speech, I wouldn't agree with that person being fired.

But wouldn't you agree that after some information comes to light that may damage the Teen Choice Award brand, that it's perfectly reasonable for them to sever ties with that individual?

That's the lens I'm usually looking at these situations with.

 

[kihei]

Just watched the recent Dave Chappelle comedy special on Netflix. Laughter may not be able to justify all of it, for sure, but, man, I thought that was incredibly funny.

 

[Trap Jesus]

I got about halfway through Bill Burr's special. I don't think it was horrible, but something definitely felt off. It really is all just hot button politics topics, which I'm just becoming tired of, not offended by. I'm a huge fan otherwise.

 

[Shareefruck]

But wouldn't you agree that after some information comes to light that may damage the Teen Choice Award brand, that it's perfectly reasonable for them to sever ties with that individual?

That's the lens I'm usually looking at these situations with.

It may be perfectly within their rights and in their best interests as a business, but I don't know that I'd agree with the decision on an ethical level.

You pit those two conflicting interests against each other and I'm almost always going to side with the latter. We don't let businesses blindly fire ex-convicts if this information gets publicized merely because it starts to hurt their brand and reputation, do we? (honestly don't know, but I should hope not)

It does sort of become a free speech issue at that point when even perfectly reasonable and defensible speech from the past outside of the work environment can become valid justification for firings. It's just plain discrimination at that point, no?

 

[discostu]

It may be perfectly within their rights and in their best interests as a business, but I don't know that I'd agree with the decision on an ethical level.

You pit those two conflicting interests against each other and I'm almost always going to side with the latter. We don't let businesses blindly fire ex-convicts if this information gets publicized merely because it starts to hurt their brand and reputation, do we? (honestly don't know, but I should hope not)

It does sort of become a free speech issue at that point when even perfectly reasonable and defensible speech from the past outside of the work environment can become valid justification for firings. It's just plain discrimination at that point, no?

We're moving into labour law here, but, these are entertainment gigs, and usually contracts, not employment agreements. They probably have cancellation clauses (and fees). It's very different than someone in an office job getting fired for outside of work behavior, but even then, there's a lot of employer flexibility.

But, putting aside the job portion, and consider endorsement contracts. If a comedian has some old material comes out that hurts the brand association, and the endorsing company chooses to sever the contract through the available contract clauses (and paying whatever fees), do you see that as ethical? Genuinely curious.


Note: please don't take these comments as an attack of your position. I'm genuinely enjoying this discussion and different perspective.

 

[Shareefruck]

We're moving into labour law here, but, these are entertainment gigs, and usually contracts, not employment agreements. They probably have cancellation clauses (and fees). It's very different than someone in an office job getting fired for outside of work behavior, but even then, there's a lot of employer flexibility.

But, putting aside the job portion, and consider endorsement contracts. If a comedian has some old material comes out that hurts the brand association, and the endorsing company chooses to sever the contract through the available contract clauses (and paying whatever fees), do you see that as ethical? Genuinely curious.


Note: please don't take these comments as an attack of your position. I'm genuinely enjoying this discussion and different perspective.

Admittedly we're getting into territory that I don't feel too confidently or strongly about anyways, is a complete blind-spot for me legally, and that I can easily flip-flop on.

Endorsement contracts as in advertising sponsors and things like that? I don't really like the idea of them to begin with, but I get your point that if they must exist, sponsors should logically be able to back out on just about any grounds. The thing is, with something like SNL, I tend to focus on the "doing the job" part of the equation, and the other PR/branding/representation side of it just feels like grossly manipulative and nonsensical consideration to me in general, even though I do acknowledge that it is something that others care a lot about in reality.

If it's part of the contract, then it's part of the contract, but I personally find it pretty lame that something like that can even be dictated and enforced in a contract to begin with. Doubly so if it allows the employer to freely discriminate against even defensible ideologies and viewpoints. I guess unethical would be the wrong word, since it's widely known, accepted, and agreed upon practice.

 

[John Price]

that delivery

 

[bleedblue1223]

that delivery

Yeah, I remember seeing that years ago. Talent.

 

[John Price]

 

[John Price]

 

[John Price]

 

[John Price]

Florentine is pretty hilarious too

"They won't let me do special Ed on Crank Yankers reboot but go ahead and tell all the Caitlyn Jenner transgender jokes on the Baldwin roast"

 

[Pilky01]

This is actually a buddy of mine from High School and I think hes genuinely pretty good.

 

[David Dennison]

Florentine is pretty hilarious too

"They won't let me do special Ed on Crank Yankers reboot but go ahead and tell all the Caitlyn Jenner transgender jokes on the Baldwin roast"

Lol I did a Special Ed a few years ago when a scammer called me trying to syskey me. Kept him on the phone for 20 minutes doing a big YAAAYYYY every time he told me to do something.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

 

[NyQuil]

I guess I feel like there should be a bit of a statute of limitations on comments provided the individual apologizes and realizes that they are under the magnifying glass going forward and that this kind of thing isn’t tolerated anymore.

Firing and banning people seems extreme IMO when the person hasn’t actually done anything offensive during the gig they were hired for.

At the same time - it’s easier for the brand to assume no risk and simply toss the individual aside. There are plenty of other comedians out there to choose from. Just because it’s easier doesn’t mean it necessarily sits well.

The fact that I’m older may have something to do with it. Society has progressed in my lifetime and that probably means that I did something not in keeping with current standards at some point.

Just glad the permanent record that is social media didn’t really exist I guess.

 

[John Price]

I guess I feel like there should be a bit of a statute of limitations on comments provided the individual apologizes and realizes that they are under the magnifying glass going forward and that this kind of thing isn’t tolerated anymore.

Firing and banning people seems extreme IMO when the person hasn’t actually done anything offensive during the gig they were hired for.

At the same time - it’s easier for the brand to assume no risk and simply toss the individual aside. There are plenty of other comedians out there to choose from. Just because it’s easier doesn’t mean it necessarily sits well.

The fact that I’m older may have something to do with it. Society has progressed in my lifetime and that probably means that I did something not in keeping with current standards at some point.

Just glad the permanent record that is social media didn’t really exist I guess.

The notion that anyone could have their history dredged up by Twitter trolls and others for the sheer delight of trying to fire people they don't like is terrifying.

People don't like The Gunn comparison but IT'S THE SAME THING.

 

[NyQuil]

The notion that anyone could have their history dredged up by Twitter trolls and others for the sheer delight of trying to fire people they don't like is terrifying.

Well, the practical solution in this day and age is to delete all your old tweets.

If I was a celebrity of any kind, I’d hire someone to do it.

Ultimately the lowest risk is having zero social media presence but I imagine that your agent probably wouldn’t be cool with that.

There are a lot of cocky young people around who think that their views couldn’t possibly be interpreted differently in the future as society inevitably changes some more.

Buckle up.

 

[ThePhoenixx]

Comedy is the canary of the free speech mine.

 

[Lehnerd Skinnerd]

One of my current fav stand-ups.

 

[John Price]

Maniscalco recently hosted the MTV Video Music Awards. Despite his monologue drawing laughs from the Prudential Center (Newark, New Jersey) crowd, many watching at home took to twitter to voice their alleged offense at his jokes poking fun at millennials.