|
Post by oh oooh on Aug 24, 2021 12:49:46 GMT
It's a simplification but it makes sense to me. Why don't we hear mother-in-law jokes or hear 'Paki' these days? The root of it all is being nice to people. Being super-sensitive in some cases, perhaps
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2021 13:00:57 GMT
It's a simplification but it makes sense to me. Why don't we hear mother-in-law jokes or hear 'Paki' these days? The root of it all is being nice to people. Being super-sensitive in some cases, perhaps I still hear jokes about nationalities all the time. The reason why "paki" became taboo was because Asian people were victims of various forms of racism and such an expression was seen as enabling that racism because of its derogatory nature. So in-built into all of this is an understanding of power dynamics within society. "Be nice to everyone" doesn't recognise that last point and hence is an immediately unhelpful starting point.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Aug 24, 2021 13:14:12 GMT
It's a difficult one. The right to cause offence, caricature and mock people, institutions and the like is deeply rooted in our culture. It goes back a long way and is very much a part of what we are about. Here I'm talking specifically about British Anglo-Saxon culture, more so than some wider "humanity". In many countries, for example, to talk ill of those in power could cost you your life or a sustained period in jail until relatively recently. By the 18th century British satire had embedded itself deeply, and apart from the period during the Revolutionary Wars when sedition against the King was taken very seriously, it has been there ever since. That's not to say that it isn't in other countries, but I do think it is more present in British, and thus to a certain extent, in American culture.
Now, the downside, one could argue, is that it has bred a culture where people are often unfairly mocked and that in itself fosters prejudice. People from minorities, different sexual orientations etc. The problem is that if you create a situation where someone or a group is essentially immune from mocking, or that you create a law where someone can say "that's a hate crime", I personally feel that has an impact somewhere unexpected. No-one should be free from being mocked or caricatured essentially. To give a group of people a "free pass" will mean that they will exploit that situation. One could argue, quite explicitly, that some sections of the Muslim population in both Britain and France have done that already, with some quite horrific consequences involved.
Of course, no-one is suggesting that we return to the likes of stand-up comedians telling Paki jokes. But it is a thin line to tread. There is already a growing consensus that left-wing comedy, which is peddled by the BBC and Channel 4, is no longer funny in any real way, beyond mocking "gammons" - which, using the same logic, is racist. Because it is constricted by what it can say or not, then we already have censorship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2021 13:16:16 GMT
It's a simplification but it makes sense to me. Why don't we hear mother-in-law jokes or hear 'Paki' these days? The root of it all is being nice to people. Being super-sensitive in some cases, perhaps It's more to do with people taking it to the extreme is what people is talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2021 13:23:06 GMT
Some good points there T.
I'd disagree with that last para though. I come across relatively little political comedy on TV, I get the impression it's seen as a bit old hat. The only one I can think of that fits that description is that Asian guy Nishur something.
There was actually a lot more of that politically correct comedy in the 80s with guys like Simon Fanshawe, Andy De La Tour, even Ben Elton.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 24, 2021 13:24:07 GMT
I remember Griff describing PC as just "being nice to people".
The point with comedy, and I suspect this is where Cleese is coming from is that nice comedy isn't particularly funny. Comedy is cruel, offensive (to someone), abusive. If you try and sanitise comedy in this way you simply make it less funny.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2021 13:32:34 GMT
I remember Griff describing PC as just "being nice to people". The point with comedy, and I suspect this is where Cleese is coming from is that nice comedy isn't particularly funny. Comedy is cruel, offensive (to someone), abusive. If you try and sanitise comedy in this way you simply make it less funny. That's a bit of a narrow definition of comedy....not all comedy fits that definition quite clearly. You can have quirky comedy, surreal comedy etc. But yeah some comedy does rely on pushing boundaries and if you prevent it from doing so, you stop it being funny. The problem with this whole debate for me is it's often far too broad and quickly splits into binary positions. I find the only way it can be usefully discussed is by debating specific examples and issues. Hopefully the Cheese programme will do that.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Aug 24, 2021 13:33:45 GMT
Good comedy isn't always cruel. But I'd agree that, to a certain extent, some people are drawn towards the murky borders where transgression lies to find the best laughs. I hate the term "edgelord" but for me there is something powerful when you are laughing at things "where you're not supposed to laugh". That I guess is the problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2021 13:35:17 GMT
Some people like to be insulted though, it's a whole genre of comedy. The now shit version of the US "Roast" is a yearly thing with some insults that would make the even harden comedian wince.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Aug 24, 2021 13:40:19 GMT
Personally, I find the rainbow/diversity agenda being chucked at me by society, advertisers and general culture to be loathsome, mostly because it's being manufactured, peddled and forced at me. I think that most people instinctively know it's fake as fuck.
I don't have any issue with the message that it's carrying, but it's the manner in which it is being pushed that almost angers me. And I think that it is trying to suppress the somewhat guttural, satirical culture that we have built over the centuries.
When I joined the Telegraph, Bron Waugh was on his last legs at the paper. I remember reading him for the first time and almost being shocked by the venom of his writing - he really did dislike a lot of people and made no bones about it. After a while though, I came to like his scabrous prose because, simply, it was very enjoyable to read. There is something quite amusing about horrendous take-downs, because it is, ultimately, human. If we lived in a world where we all had to be nice to each other, it would be unfailingly dreadful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2021 13:45:42 GMT
Personally, I find the rainbow/diversity agenda being chucked at me by society, advertisers and general culture to be loathsome, mostly because it's being manufactured, peddled and forced at me. I think that most people instinctively know it's fake as fuck. I don't have any issue with the message that it's carrying, but it's the manner in which it is being pushed that almost angers me. And I think that it is trying to suppress the somewhat guttural, satirical culture that we have built over the centuries. It just seems really hypocritical and cynical to me,.so I'm with you there. The worst one currently is that Amazon one featuring kids of different nationalities talking of saving the environment. I mean Amazon of all people, with their record and practices...the sheer fucking nerve of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2021 13:47:18 GMT
Personally, I find the rainbow/diversity agenda being chucked at me by society, advertisers and general culture to be loathsome, mostly because it's being manufactured, peddled and forced at me. I think that most people instinctively know it's fake as fuck. I don't have any issue with the message that it's carrying, but it's the manner in which it is being pushed that almost angers me. And I think that it is trying to suppress the somewhat guttural, satirical culture that we have built over the centuries. Advertisers take over that shit pretty quickly and justify it as their business is learning to change with the times, that's why they never did it before.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 24, 2021 13:54:23 GMT
It's a difficult one. The right to cause offence, caricature and mock people, institutions and the like is deeply rooted in our culture. It goes back a long way and is very much a part of what we are about. Here I'm talking specifically about British Anglo-Saxon culture, more so than some wider "humanity". In many countries, for example, to talk ill of those in power could cost you your life or a sustained period in jail until relatively recently. By the 18th century British satire had embedded itself deeply, and apart from the period during the Revolutionary Wars when sedition against the King was taken very seriously, it has been there ever since. That's not to say that it isn't in other countries, but I do think it is more present in British, and thus to a certain extent, in American culture. Now, the downside, one could argue, is that it has bred a culture where people are often unfairly mocked and that in itself fosters prejudice. People from minorities, different sexual orientations etc. The problem is that if you create a situation where someone or a group is essentially immune from mocking, or that you create a law where someone can say "that's a hate crime", I personally feel that has an impact somewhere unexpected. No-one should be free from being mocked or caricatured essentially. To give a group of people a "free pass" will mean that they will exploit that situation. One could argue, quite explicitly, that some sections of the Muslim population in both Britain and France have done that already, with some quite horrific consequences involved. Of course, no-one is suggesting that we return to the likes of stand-up comedians telling Paki jokes. But it is a thin line to tread. There is already a growing consensus that left-wing comedy, which is peddled by the BBC and Channel 4, is no longer funny in any real way, beyond mocking "gammons" - which, using the same logic, is racist. Because it is constricted by what it can say or not, then we already have censorship. The thing is mocking and taking the piss can also be treating people equally and in doing so it's implicit that you see that group as "equals" therefore worthy of piss taking. It's like a sign of camaraderie. A Scotsman can make jokes about an Englishman or an Irishman can makes jokes about Welshman and so on because within that it is implied both sides are equal somehow. At what point do we treat British Muslims any other group in the same way? I remember at Uni when I met an Italia fella called Claudio and we got chatting and within no time at all we were jokingly abusing each other...I was calling him an "Italian cunt sucking at his mothers teats" and he was calling me a "Scotch twat" (his English wasn't great so his digs were limited) and so on and it was like the ice was really broken. We were laughing and sharing in the brotherly joy of this kind of humour and from that night on we were friends. That to me is a very natural, human thing and I don't think that is a British thing although certainly our humour is different in some respects; it transcends borders, it's universal. This is where PC can actually get in the way and by creating these special dispensations, these areas where you can't go, these jokes you can't make it does create something unnatural and neurotic and imo quite patronising towards these subgroups in our society. Like they need to be "protected" by "us" and I don't think they do and I suspect it's not representative of how many within those groups feel either. I can understand where this desire to create PC humour came from (let's move away from Bernhard Manning) but like so many "corrections" they sadly end up over correcting with unintended consequences. I mean who's to say humour wouldn't have just adjusted more naturally over time as Britain became more multi-cultural and the "paki" jokes would have subsided but this element of piss taking humour and friendly banter wouldn't have been established between other groups in our society and in doing so an implied equality through humour established?
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 24, 2021 14:05:04 GMT
Some good points there T. I'd disagree with that last para though. I come across relatively little political comedy on TV, I get the impression it's seen as a bit old hat. The only one I can think of that fits that description is that Asian guy Nishur something. There was actually a lot more of that politically correct comedy in the 80s with guys like Simon Fanshawe, Andy De La Tour, even Ben Elton. Nish Kumar....about as funny as child rape. I don't think that 80s PC comedy was funny at all. Alexei Sayle? Ben Elton talking about Thatcher? Awful stuff. Honestly, I'd rather watch Bernard Manning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2021 14:10:43 GMT
WAIT!!!!Is it safe to say, on here, that the young ones was just.........ok? Nish Kumar is another SHOUTING MAKES MY JOKES FUNNIER comedian. Nick Helm is another, fuck off you cunts.
|
|