Politics in Media - The Good, the Bad, and the Preachy

Maybe, but the world does not necessarily need to be a zero-sum game. Like, say, a sinking ship with 30 passengers and an escape boat that can support only 5 people, and thus a fight is necessary.

The resources of the world can be divided in a way, that most people benefit without the need for anyone to be sleeping in the streets or dying from hunger.

Now, you may argue that people will want the best for themselves and their family, but this hypothetical treatment will not only strengthen empathy but will (as I said) also tone down greed and selfishness.

So People may put more value in assuring that their neighbor has enoug food on his table, than in buying their third car, or that expansive new mobile.

Who know? Maybe if most people take that treatment, wars and crimes would be reduced, and the huge funds that normally go to military and police could be directed to other avenues.

...................

Or not, maybe you are right and humans are simply incorrigible, even with magical/science fiction treatments.

................

I know that this is a possibility. I finished my previous post with:

Edited by jawal on Apr 30th 2024 at 4:10:34 PM

Also, if we are talking real life good people and violence: in my experience while empathy may reduce violence (especially in-group violence) overall, what it does even more is make people demonize those that they (or their ‘side’) are planning to use or already are using violence on (or even just victims of some misfortune in the ‘enemy’ group), to reduce or eliminate the discomfort it is causing them.

Edited by Smeagol17 on May 1st 2024 at 5:24:40 PM

I think that this debate is better suited for the philosophy thread.

So I just watched Jerry Seinfeld’s Unfrosted and it has a sequence where the cereal mascots go on strike, get fired, and basically storm Kellogg’s HQ in a parody of the January 6 Riots with Thurl Ravenscroft being a Tony the Tiger-themed QAnon Shaman.

Uh....

Yeah, it doesn’t sound that good. I figured as much.

There are two ways to look at this, and neither paints Seinfeld in a good light.

Really gives new meaning to Seinfeld Is Unfunny

That would put that interview into a new light.

What interview?

A few days ago, Jerry went on a Bitter Old Man rant about how it's impossible to be funny anymore because people are so hypersensitive and easily offended.

Yeah, that one. There’s also this bit:

He's not fundamentally wrong: comedy necessarily mocks things that are not, in and of themselves, funny. Every joke is at someone's expense. If we cut out any/all offense, we must stop telling jokes entirely.

Kristi Noem shot her dog. Trump fell asleep in court. Whoo, that's hilarious. Get out my jester hat. Late-night comedy lives on this stuff.

Humor is how we cope with tragedy.

Edited by Fighteer on May 3rd 2024 at 6:53:36 AM

There's something to be said for stopping and asking who that 'someone' is, and what your goal is in taking jabs at them. What's the joke?

Corrupt narcissistic politicians are a very different matter from, say, social minorities.

Only from bad comedians. There are plenty of jokes that are made about situations, that are about common understanding or even just funny wordplay.

Even the most basic of comedy, toilet humour/fart jokes doesn’t necessitate someone be the butt of the joke.

“The only true comedy is insult comedy” is some extreme gatekeeping.

Edited by Silasw on May 3rd 2024 at 12:07:41 PM

Obviously, not all comedy is insults. I don't mean that at all. But it's always at someone or something's expense, even at the level of "why did the chicken cross the road" jokes. How do you know the chicken isn't offended?

Comedy inherently juxtaposes tragedy and misfortune, and there will always be someone potentially upset by any joke.

Taco Bell, for example, is a frequent butt of jokes, usually on the basis that its food gives people diarrhea. Now, obviously that's not literally true or it wouldn't remain in business. We accept the humor because it makes us feel good to laugh at the concept.

Jim Gaffigan, one of the "cleanest" comedians in the world, constantly makes fun of people who overeat junk food, starting with himself.

Tell me any joke ever and I'll find someone who might be upset by it. That is the gatekeeping being referred to.

Edited by Fighteer on May 3rd 2024 at 7:16:13 AM

Pretty much any interaction, any statement, any action is liable to cause offense to someone, as is the nature of the human experience. I'm sure if I said "I like bread.", I would have offended either a very sensitive zero-carber or someone who is pissed that they can't have gluten. That's not a unique facet to comedy, that's something related to all human interactions ever.

What matters is the values of the audience involved and the context of how the comedy is stated as an artform. Sure, the comedy is liable to offend someone, but our community determines as a social standard whether the offense is warranted and whether we value the people's offense as a consideration. So the chicken crossing the road joke, and the chicken is offended? Who cares, why do we give a damn about the chickens offense? We fry chickens and eat them with biscuits. If I make a joke about the joys of queer relations, and a sensitive Evangelical is offended because queer relationships are against their religion, I as the artist and the community as the audience will determine whether or not their offense is reasonable and whether we value the feelings of the queer community and their allies more than sensitive prudes. The thing with comedy and really any artform is that the values change and with comedy, values change much quicker. Old jokes at a certain people's expense are not valued any more by the community, and some artists wants to stand still and continue laughing at them, while the community at large says offending them in that manner is not cool anymore. That's the nature of comedy and offense. Like you can't play a minstrel show straight anymore, after all.

frankly there's way too many comedians focusing on that hypothetical audience who finds their comedy offensive,then they start acting like they're an underdog because they think the offended people are going to cancel them and therefore their comedy is bold and daring

If Seinfeld is upset because his old material is considered too offensive for today's audiences, boo hoo. But the idea that comedy should seek to never cause offense is, well offensive. It's toxic to the basic purpose of humor.

Everybody laughs at the comedian until the joke is at their expense, then they suddenly get huffy.

Edited by Fighteer on May 3rd 2024 at 7:37:28 AM

Comedy itself is mostly a mental double-take, where things appear to make sense one way, but you do a double take and realize they work a different way instead.

I do think comedy inevitably involves someone, or certain behaviors, being the butt of the joke eventually. However I think there are certain behaviors or traits that are better choices for targets of comedy.

To use a good example: Steamed Hams. Skinner is having his boss, Chalmers, over for dinner. He burns his roast and decides to get fast food instead and pretend it's his own cooking. This causes him to have to form a series of lies until eventually a fire breaks out in his kitchen (he forget to turn off the oven) and he has to claim it's Aurora Borealis.

The reason why the comedy works is that it's both relatable and insightful. We've all been Skinner before, and the sketch essentially serves the purpose of showing how silly that behavior is (the consequences of admitting his roast was ruined would probably not have been as severe as his house catching fire). We all have the choice to be Skinner or not.

There is something to be said in taking into account how you poke fun at someone, because people have certain sensitivities about them that if you mock in the wrong way, it creates very bad feelings, especially if you're trying to make everyone feel good. Even if you're doing jokes at people's expense, doesn't mean everything is on the table. If a person you're mocking is a trauma victim and you make jokes that intentionally agitate that trauma at their expense, I'm liable to call you a jerk, not a bold comedian who pushes boundaries. Certain communities don't care. A group of white racists would love to watch a modern day minstrel show, as is their values, mocking a marginalized community's trauma. But for other people, taking into account what someone is willing to have poked fun about themselves and still walk away happy is part of the art. Jokes can be at someone's expense, but not all jokes at someone's expense will offend them.

My thing with the quote is that it feels too binary. Even among peers, just because something gets a laugh doesn’t mean it’s not offensive with it hits on either ends falling on how comfortable you’re feeling. Then it’s the usual culture war issue that Seinfeld brings up that tends to fail to answer: why would people be offended by that? Seen plenty of people point out the rickshaw thing is something less people would be bothered by than he seems to think, along with example more modern shows with jokes less safe than that.

Jokes at someone's expense can still be good-natured. Friendly ribbing at cultural mores of a given country you've been exposed to will go through better than going "Women, amirite?"

Edited by Resileafs on May 3rd 2024 at 9:01:05 AM

The whole blaming-the-audience defense looks pretty weak once you find out Rob Schneider uses it.

And going outside the comedy bubble, you've also got the all-female Ghostbusters and that Charlie's Angels reboot where the directors basically said "you're a misogynist unless you give us money".

Next they'll be telling us that only peasants see a naked emperor.

Edited by DoctorSleep on May 3rd 2024 at 7:17:36 AM

I will say it's one of those things where it isn't binary:

Yeah, sometimes off-beat humor is appropriate and some people are too easily offended. However, you do actually have a responsibility as a comedian to not be a d-bag.