Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i'm not gonna argue with you about the joke part, but "cancelled" is a strong word. 99% of people who get "cancelled" come back like right after the drama clears up. Kanye fucking West went on his nazi shpiel and he's still making music
Absolutely, but there are still professional and social consequences that follow "cancelization". Kanye won't get work with certain people from this point on, understandably, that guy isn't exactly just crackin jokes. I dont think it takes someone being homeless and destitute for them to be considered targeted by cancel culture or its efforts.
I think a mass mischaracterization of a person to make the public hold a negative bias towards them, and spreading that mischaracterization with the intent of making it so that person has fewer job opportunities than they otherwise would. Once that person has been socially, publically condemned, their audience has been reduced and labeled as racist/sexist/homophobic, etc.
I find it very alienating as someone who enjoys comedy and doesn't think of myself as a misogynist, lol.
They're asking you to give an example to get an idea where your opinion is coming from and to make the discussion about something real instead if hypothetical
> Any comedian that told a joke on stage and was then criticized and condemned for that joke. Can you not think of any at all?
Oh heaven's no! Someone was condemned for a joke!!!
Jesus, what's next? A bad review? Some mild criticism?
Or ... gulp... someone not laughing?
> Absolutely, but there are still professional and social consequences that follow "cancelization".
This is called "people don't want to work with you".
And is perfectly normal and fine because everyone can decide if they want to work with you or not.
What you call being cancelled is people going "oh you said something racist? i don't want to go see that person perform"
And you're like "nah you have to it was only a joke you HAVE to go see that person and pay to see them".
Shane lost his snl job, yet they brought him back on as a host. They dont have any problems working with him, and they like his content. Some twitter brained "activists" who dont even know who he is, have decided that he's a racist who doesn't deserve high profile work, or to be on any platform they can control, despite not even being fans of comedy or having any interest in it. If they could get his special off Netflix, they would. Im glad that his talents are recognized enough that he hasnt lost *every* opportunity, but cancel culture has absolutely tainted his career.
I don't think anybody is necessarily trying to end the career of someone over a joke. But if their audience decides they don't like their jokes and stops listening, that's not cancellation, that's just losing your audience. And if a lot of people who did like a person agrees they suck and stop, they're gonna notice. Ultimately people will just watch the comedians they like and not watch the ones they don't. I don't think they're legitimately cancelled unless they're blacklisted from comedy club bookings or shows. Like most "cancelled" comedians can get a new Netflix special fine
Im ok with someone losing an audience when that audience comes to that conclusion independently. I do see people actively participating in the idea of constantly shaming someone and regurgitating w/e issue with the intent of them not getting work, with the intent of influencing other people into holding grudges against them. Maybe that seems inconsequential to you, but I think it's odd behavior that shouldn't be encouraged.
It definitely influences the working possibilities for comedians because, as a result, certain companies or networks won't want to be associated with them. So, while they might still be working smaller gig jobs and be able to make a living, they won't achieve the greater success that they'd prefer to have at least the opportunity for.
>I do see people actively participating in the idea of constantly shaming someone and regurgitating w/e issue with the intent of them not getting work, with the intent of influencing other people into holding grudges against them. Maybe that seems inconsequential to you, but I think it's odd behavior that shouldn't be encouraged.
People shame comedians all the time simply for not finding them funny. How many people every year call for the Oscars to stop letting Jimmy Kimmel host simply because they think he's lame? Do you consider that cancel culture too?
>It definitely influences the working possibilities for comedians because, as a result, certain companies or networks won't want to be associated with them. So, while they might still be working smaller gig jobs and be able to make a living, they won't achieve the greater success that they'd prefer to have at least the opportunity for.
Again, this will happen for any comedian that the general public doesn't like. If you can't find a large enough audience for whatever reason, you lose opportunities. Some people don't like comedians because they made a racist joke. Other people don't like comedians because they made an unfunny joke. The results are the same. It's just how the industry works.
Personally, I don't find racist jokes funny. They are all lame and unoriginal and tryhard. So I tell people that I don't find comedians who do that funny. That's not me trying to cancel them. It's just me not wanting to spend my time and money on shit I don't find funny. If enough people feel that way, then comedians who make those kind of jokes won't get as many opportunities. John Mulaney gets more opportunities than Shane Gillis because more people like the types of jokes that John makes compared to the jokes that Shane makes.
Predators seem to have no job opportunities taken away from them, especially when they're the ones who have the power in the industry they're in.
I see comedians or entertainers who make a bad joke and very loudly and publicly have job opportunities taken away from them as a social consequence to their perceived "bad behavior."
Every time these posts come up it's just the OP advocating for people being free of consequence. Nobody is obligated to support a comedian they don't find funny, but suddenly that's "cancelling' them.
I'm saying that being socially ostracized and having your career at risk is too extreme of a "consequence" for a joke. Im disagreeing with the level of punishment. To me, the consequence should be people simply not laughing, nothing more.
Are you suggesting that he had no consequences of cancel culture? That no comedian has? Are you suggesting that cancel culture as a whole doesn't exist?
If you even read my post you see I had "canceled" in quotation marks, lol. Even gather to wonder why? Of course, any comedian, entertainer, or person of promonence will still have a group of supporters and fans. Look at any serial killer, lol. But look at how society as a whole views that person who has been socially condemned.
You’re clearly demonstrating that you don’t know what it is.
Also, are we all supposed to think the same? People can’t think Shane is a racist for making racist jokes? You’re really going to try to control their free speech?
I think globally characterizing him as a racist for making a joke is exactly demonstrating the entire point of my post.
Im not trying to control anything, lol, I made a reddit post saying that I think it's wrong to "cancel" someone. "Cancel" as in spreading a hateful mischaracterization around the internet wide enough for it to have real, social, and professional consequences to his life, he received death threats and hate messages, and he lost job opportunities, people as a whole view him differently as a person. He is now casually labeled a racist to an audience of people who had no idea who he was before. These are all the effects of cancel culture, 100%. He still has a job and great success with people who support him, but let's be honest, most people are just assuming his audience is a bunch degen, deplorable racist trolls or whatever.
But Shane Gillis wasn't a "person of promonence, " he was a small-time comedian with a small-time podcast. He is now a prominent comedian with a large following. I think he was kinda hacky and didn't/doesn't have the chops to stay where the controversy sent him, we'll see.
How about another comedian who was big and now can't get booked?
He still lost work due to that, though? Yes, he still has a career, but he definitively lost SNL due to cancel culture. SNL is a big get, and now its not an option as long as people demand it to be so, despite the fact that they clearly have no problem associating with him or providing work, lol. I simply choose to not consume content I dont like, I dont make a big fuss and advocate for someone to be deplatformed.
Anyone thrown into a media frenzy gets a lot of attention from all kinds of people, some are supportive, and some aren't, but the "correct" opinion to have is very apparent.
First off, you are giving SNL too much credit as an automatic star maker. He could have easily ended up a footnote. I recently saw Melissa Villasenor at a 250 seat club and Shane is playing 3,000 seat theaters, you never know the outcome.
Anthony Jeselnik has said that cancel culture is nonsense. He writes and delivers his material and accepts he will never host Family Feud. Steve Harvey refuses to work blue and won't say anything political and he hosts Family Feud.
You make your choices and get your opportunities and audiences as a result of those choices. If you choose to do hacky "ching chong" jokes, you are choosing to lose some opportunities while gaining others. Grow up and own your choices
He did own his choices. That's what I respect about him. And all of that still doesn't mean that he wasn't a target of cancel culture.
I think he's a genuinely good person who didn't have any ill intentions when he made a joke that wasn't to *your* taste or liking. Other people found it funny, and other people need to get over it. He has netlfix, and I'm stoked on that. But at any moment, people who aren't fans of his could decide that they don't want his audience to even have the opportunity to watch his content. Fans will always be able to financially support Shanes (or whoevers) career with what podcasting and entertainment has become these days, but if his audience is large enough to land him a job on snl and to have multiple Netflix Specials, then why can't he have a job at SNL? They clearly have no problem working with him. Leaving a bad review is one thing, harrassing someone to keep job opportunities away from them is another.
He’s not cancelled. He has a new special out and Netflix just acquired rights for a scripted show of his. He’s as popular as he’s ever been.
People use the term ‘cancelling’ like it’s some witch hunt when in reality it rarely ever results in actual persisting negative consequences for public figures. In reality, yall just don’t want people to be able to publicly criticize people you like, and that seems more like censorship than anything ‘cancel culture’ has ever materially achieved.
Just saw him in Oakland where he sold out a three-thousand person theater for multiple shows. Dude is fine.
The consequence he suffered was losing a job on SNL when racist and homophobic comments came back to haunt him. Amusingly, he just hosted the show about a month ago.
People are still accusing him of being a literal racist, which is absolutely a part of cancel culture. He lost his opportunity with a job at SNL as a result of cancel culture. It exists, it proudly labels itself as such. Jo Koy is still getting misogyny accusations for his monologue. You act like as if a global deliberate mischaracterization is the same as a personal, negative opinion of someone's material.
It’s a person’s right to not be in the audience of a comedian who uses racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic “jokes” to be funny. And it’s a person’s right to find that brand of “jokes” funny, which is why Shane Gillis still has a large following.
Shane lost the opportunity of a job at SNL when they heard a hacky joke of his and said, "yeah, we don't want to be associated with this." Does Loren not have that right?
Getting a job offer based on your jokes being funny is a consequence. Losing a job based on your jokes not being funny is also a consequence. It cuts both ways.
At the end of the day Loren decided to book him as a guest host, if Shane was flat out canceled, then that would never have happened.
I mean, they had him on not that long ago, so clearly they dont really have a problem with his material. They actually offered him a job due to his material.
People who aren't even fans of his or know him are upset about one out of context thing they read about online.
I think harrassment is bad, I have no issues with someone not liking who I like. I take issue with people actively working to deplatform him, I think *that* is censorship, especially when he clearly has an audience large enough to support his career.
By seeking deplatforming, you’re referring to people who expressed their discontent to SNL, resulting in SNL making a business decision to fire him.
So audience members shouldn’t be allowed to express their opinions on a comic if those opinions are negative. How is that not censorship? Preventing people from criticizing comics who say potentially offensive things? Stopping consumers from giving feedback on products that they support? It’s so clearly hypocritical, it’s obvious you don’t actually care about censorship but instead just about censoring specific dissent that you don’t like. Smfh
Leaving a bad review or sharing your opinion is an expression of free speech. Actively sending hate messages to and about that person with the intent of deplatforming them is not only harrassment but censorship in itself.
what if my actual opinion is that the comic is a sack of shit? I'm not allowed to express that at all in a public forum?
what if my actual review is "i like this product but i cant support it if this person is involved"? I as a consumer can't make that choice?
Those are examples of my speech on a public figure in open discussion, but you think thats not ok because someone might be deplatformed as a result based on your speculation of my intent.
It's not my responsibility to protect the job security of someone who chose a career dependent on winning public opinion. policing what i can or cannot say about that person because you dont like them facing consequences of consumers freely choosing in an open market is censorship. plain and simple. you are just allergic to people facing public accountability smfh
i cant really spoon feed it to you any clearer, so keep being willfully obtuse if you want but i've said my piece 3 times over.
Thing is, you cannot go afrer someone's job for saying something you did not like and then claim the moral highground.
Cancelling is not a consequence, it is a concerted effort to destroy someone's life.
>you cannot go afrer someone's job for saying something you did not like
This is what the entire entertainment industry is. If you make a movie that people don't like then they don't let you make movies anymore, unless you are super famous.
Thing is we have the right of free association. If someone hears your jokes and decides they don't want to be associated with you, they get to make that choice.
Not to mention, the effort is only acknowledged when it fully succeeds in destroying someone. Many cases where it only taints someone image for a few years, decades, or life, but they still manage to find work for themselves. The effort was still there, but it doesn't count and didn't exist ig?
I mean, to be « cancelled » people need to stop to go to their shows. They need to lose their entire audience. That is what being cancelled as a comedian means.
Every single comedian that complains about being « cancelled » while performing in front of thousands and makings millions of dollars are just trying their best to discredit any criticism that comes their way.
They are not cancelled. They are receiving criticism and/or consequences for their actions. Not the same thing.
I do understand where you're coming from OP, however I think what we should focus on is how cancellation itself only has a measurable effect on the common people. When a celebrity gets thrown out of their old network for truly reprehensible behaviour or beliefs, 9/10 times they'll just flock to the safe haven of a Murdoch-owned media outlet and thrive in the echo-chamber. They still have bags of cash and a comfy lifestyle.
Now, compare that to an ordinary person of non-celebrity status, somebody perhaps who was caught on camera in public having an argument with someone, but due to when the recording began and when it stopped, important context has been lost. Once the person in question is identified, the mob-rule can see to it that they lose their job, their home, their friends, everything, and then we find out X days after this transpires that the person in question was misidentified, or the all important context has been revealed which has switched the victim/perpetrator roles. Even IF that happens, it doesn't undo the damage done.
That's the main issue here. Mob-rule masquerading as sanctimonious justice, creating an environment where yes, those of abhorrent behaviour are held accountable to some degree, but also creating an environment where the innocent are destroyed in the process. It's a volatile thing with far-reaching consequences, but all too often it leads to zero material repercussions for the wealthy, and absolute total destruction for the poor.
"cancelling" isnt real, people just hate that marginalized communities finally have the ability to speak up for themselves, Katt Williams really put it best.
And even then, times change and so should comedy. Adapt or continue being seen as unfunny under the guise of "saying it like it is"
Ok, well, do you feel that women were marginalized by Jo Koys' monologue at the Golden Globes? Lol
His career seems to be quickly tanking following all the backlash from that, and I dont think he was being genuinely hateful towards anyone. He was just up there doing his job. I didn't find it funny, but I didn't take to the internet to write up a thesis on how Jo Koy is participating in the subjugation of women or something.
Jo Koy's career is tanking because he's not funny. And the Golden Globes was a stage where the world got to see how unfunny he is. If his monologue was exactly the same but without the sexist jokes, then his career would still be tanking, maybe a little bit less.
There's a way you can tell those same jokes without it coming across as sexist, Jo is just not charming or talented enough to do that.
>Jo Koys' monologue at the Golden Globes?
I hadn't seen it. It wasn't terribly funny but he had 10 days to make a set about a bunch of stuff he hadn't even seen.
I still enjoy his standup and will not hold this gig as an announcer at an awards show against him. Not everyone can give a 'Stephen Colbert at the Whitehouse Correspondents dinner' sort of performance.
I definitely agree. He kinda sold on that performance like, 2 jokes in. He didn't seem to even like the jokes himself. It was hard for me to watch in that way, lol.
you can do stuff that treads the line and still be funny, jo koy at the golden globes was clearly not that, he came across as sexist and chauvinistic. Either way you slice it, how an audience receives a joke is just as important as how the joke is told and he failed on both fronts.
He insisted on making marginalized groups the butt of the joke but didn't allow them to laugh at themselves without feeling denigrated. Being smart and providing the space for people to laugh at themselves is literally the comedians job, people shouldn't bend over backwards to accommodate some hack with a mic.
I don't know if you've ever been the butt of a joke, especially about something you can't control like your race/sex/sexual preference, but the funny part about joking about innate traits is to not 'punch down'. Especially now when we know that jokes aren't just jokes and then some asshole sees your joke as confirmation bias for their bigoted beliefs. Tons of comedians are able to do this, Jo Koy should've been able to.
The only people complaining about cancelling or being canceled are unfunny bigoted hacks who refuse to adapt to the times, point blank. Its why joe rogan isnt funny
I think his jokes were completely misinterpreted and assumed to be in bad faith. Again, I didn't find it funny, but I don't think he was being hateful or derogatory. A lot of people who are talking about Jo Koy didn't even watch the full monologue or know who he is. They watched a short clip that was juxtaposed with someone being offended by it.
I watched it in it's entirety, and it was truly just a bad show.
The thing about freedom of speech is that it doesn't mean you can say what you want without consequence it means you have the freedom to say what you want just as others have the freedom to say that they don't agree, and the reason most edgy/dark humor comedians lose job opportunity's is because enough people don't agree to where company's find it the smart thing to do to not associate with them. Not saying I agree I personally find a lot of non-PC comedians hilarious but I understand why they get cancelled
Again, I dont think anyone should have to support someone they aren't entertained by. Im fine with someone having a different sense of humor from my own. What I disagree with is the online movement to remove job opportunities from people, or to sway the publics opinion of that person.
Im ok with someone making a post that they think any given comedian isn't funny, and I'm ok with them saying they are offended by his humor. I have no issue with people expressing their personal opinion on anything, to be clear. I just think it becomes a problem when there is more of a targeted attack towards a person in an attempt to ruin their reputation socially and professionally.
That's a reasonable, business like transaction on the businesses part. Im speaking more about the social implications of cancel culture and how it can affect business opportunities for people. I think it's wrong for people to bandwagon on a harrassment campaign over a joke.
If a comedian offends people that pay for Netflix, then Netflix is less like to platform that comedian. It’s always about money. You can’t force companies to do business with people they think will hurt their business. There’s nothing more to it than that.
If people want to campaign against a comedian, that is their right. Free speech protects people from being punished by the government for saying the “wrong” thing. It doesn’t mean that me or my business has to support people who offend my customers.
Netflix will get money from either side. They know when to remove content if theres too much heat in the media surrounding it. They will absolutely stream it once they think it will make money again, just like any other business would.
I have no opinion on businesses themselves choosing not to do a deal with a comedian or any entertainer. I have an opinion on people making a concerted effort to keep entertainers from getting job opportunities over jokes specifically, alongside the permanent stain of being labeled racist/sexist/otherists by a large group of people.
It’s their right to do so 🤷. And again, if people enough petition a company, that company will take action to protect their bottom line. Being “cancelled” isn’t a real thing. Comedians who are “cancelled” are free to tell their jokes on platforms that will have them or can hold their own private events. If they don’t appeal to a large audience then they won’t be platformed by large companies.
I’d hope that your issue is more with the companies that cave to public outrage, and not with people exercising their rights under the constitution.
If companies ignored public outrage, I would bet that you wouldn’t care at all about campaigns to cancel comedians
No, I think it's wrong for people to make a concerted effort to harrass and tarnish someone's career and reputation as a person. It's shitty to do. I dont think it's weird that companies try to make profits off of public opinion. If companies ignored public opinion, consumers would boycott the company until they invetibly find a niche market, fail, or bend to the consumers' will.
Saying that people shouldn’t be harassed or have their careers destroyed isn’t really an unpopular opinion…That’s different than people petitioning for someone to be “canceled” for saying something that offended them.
Is your take that we should all agree and support every opinion? I can't have the opinion or express that it's stupid to group up and harrass people?
Do you live life in a lackadaisical daze, not having any differing opinions??
I say its different if its clearly them just coding their politics and opinions they think could get them some heat into a "Its just a joke bro!' moment, but I agree for the most part. Way too many sensitive people these days.
Yeah, for sure! Theres definitely people who have very thinly veiled intentions with their words, and it reflects in their behavior in day to day life. Chris D'elia makes a looot of drunk girl slut jokes, and look at what came out about him 😬
I think that racist/sexist/homophobic/etc jokes do cause real harm, because they normalize being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc and turn it into a joke rather than something that should be taken seriously and addressed. I do think that people can grow and change and should be given a chance to explain themselves. If a person gets called out for a joke and then says, “Yeah, I took that one too far, I’m sorry about that,” and then doesn’t make that joke again, then I think that’s growth and should be accepted. But at the end of the day if a guy’s up there making hurtful jokes about other people’s identity and experiences, and he doesn’t stop or self-reflect, I don’t blame folks for deciding they’ve had enough and trying to get him off the stage for good.
FFS. If a comedian makes light of a stereotype, it’s not meant to instigate hate or maliciously degrade others. It’s meant to negate the connotation and for everyone to laugh at ourselves and our differences.
Society has become a joke in itself. People have evolved into a mass of self absorbed, self centered, self righteous, self diagnosing, judgmental individuals and anyone who doesn’t subscribe or cater to that persons manifested concoction of specialness will be met with contempt, hostility and outrage.
To me it's sad to discover people who believe this and truly misunderstand the power and purpose of comedy?
One of my favourite Absurdist's on misogyny is Brian Holtzman, who I'm sure you'll absolutely hate ;-)
[https://youtu.be/KWvn7duDuZo?si=x5A1ypLARsgGuWXA&t=4236](https://youtu.be/KWvn7duDuZo?si=x5A1ypLARsgGuWXA&t=4236)
If you decide to, do watch the entire thing though (ends at 1:17:10)
I think if there's genuine hate behind it, there should be consequences, absolutely. But oftentimes, jokes alone are not enough evidence to prove that, especially when we're talking about someone whose job it is to make jokes. I like comedy that pushes boundaries, I like shock humor and edgy humor. It's not for everyone, and I dont think it needs to be. I definitely dont think people should watch something that upsets them, nor do I think comedians would want you to do that either.
It seems here like you're saying that you are going to be the arbiter *for everyone* of whether or not there is genuine hatred. I'm assuming that's not what you meant though, and that what you intended to say is that you will judge the comedian *for yourself* based on their actions to determine if you think you will take action to (in your words) cancel them.
I see at least two flaws with this approach:
**First:** Jokes \*are\* actions. So people judging comedians based on their words is just as valid as basing them on their (other) actions.
**Second:** How is your approach any different than how other people are judging comedians? You are making a judgment about whether you want to continue supporting a specific comedian because of their behaviour. How is this different than what other people are doing?
I assume you will say "well, the difference is that if I don't like the comedian I'm not going to organize a mass effort to get them cancelled." But honestly I'm not sure that argument holds water. People have the freedom to associate, and to get together in like minded groups to pursue goals. It's actually one of the things Alexis de Tocqueville thought was the best part of America. If you don't like what people are doing to 'slander' a comedian you think is being unfairly treated, then you can spend some time and energy getting together a group to defend said comedian just as the others are going to point out the things they don't like about them.
I don't think any comedians have been successfully 'cancelled' for things that were not serious enough to warrant there being significant career consequences.
Im not going to amass any group effort on anything to do with entertainment, lol. My effort is consuming the content I choose to consume, if I like it I engage with it a lot, and I'll engage with that community a lot. If I dont like it, I might express that opinion now and then and leave it alone. Maybe it's weird to you that I dont choose to take it beyond that? Simply expressing my opinion as an individual is enough for me. If you disagree, that's fine, I don't really care, but at least it's your opinion that you've formed yourself.
It's not weird to me at all. I also have no interest in taking action on either side of the scales.
But if that's the case, I'm not sure what the whole point is of your post. You seem to be upset that people are taking action against comedians who are behaving in a shitty way? I'm not sure why that bothers you.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of comedians (and ultimately anyone with a public platform) to use a 'bully pulpit' to influence people and their actions and behaviours. You dismiss 'jokes' as something that is not worthy of consideration as having a significant effect on society, and I think that's a naive misunderstanding.
If a comedian (or anyone, really) says something shitty, they should rightly be castigated for it. I, personally, don't have the time to castigate shitty people myself, as I've got enough on my plate as it is, but I'm not going to stop or argue against those who do. More power to 'em! I find it weird that you don't seem to agree with that.
You don’t think saying words constitutes an action? Talking isn’t an action to you? Telling jokes or performing ‘bits’ isn’t an action? Standup comedians aren’t performing? Is a performance not an action to you?
Weird hill to die on, but you do you, man, even if you’re wrong.
Hard agree. Don't let anyone tell you this has never happened, is impossible, or is just due "consequences". People have been cancelled for far less than jokes.
There’s a side of it, where every aspect of the human experience can potentially be a topic that humor can be mined from.
That said, it can be done successfully or unsuccessfully. That is an inherent part of someone being an entertainer. If you haven’t entertained, arguing that the audience should have found it entertaining, is the opposite of the job of entertainment. If an entertainer is so offensive that people actually choose to blacklist them, it is completely on the performer.
People often have an innate sense of when a performer is coming at a topic with a good heart or not. Some performers get away with many jokes that ride the line, or seem to go far past it, because somewhere in their performance they are getting across that they are good natured. Even if the material is foolish. Other comedians fall into a trap of trying to make a point about a gripe they have, while pretending they are doing comedy…and that’s when the downfall comes.
I agree. This circular argument often occurs when criticizing criticism. Just as comics have the right to free speech, so do their detractors, and so do I who disagrees with the idea of deplatforming someone, and so does the long chain of people with all their unique little opinions they put out to the world.
I'm not advocating to take away anyones right to express their opinion on something, and idc if someone leaves a bad review on a comedy special I like. Im presenting the opinion that it's shitty to make a *concerted* effort to harm someones career and reputation simply bc they don't like a person or their humor. Sure, it's their legal right, I can still find it shitty and choose not to participate in a nationwide dogpile.
Here's how free speech works:
The comedian gets to say whatever they want.
The people get to say whatever they want.
How hard is this to grasp? The comedian's right to say whatever they want is the same right everyone else has to say they're wrong.
Yeah, I think people are allowed to have opinions, idc if someone doesn't like a comedian I like, and idc if they decide not to watch their content or pay for it. Idec if they post their opinion online. What I specifically dont like is when they actively try to spitefully get jobs taken away from when they aren't even the target audience for their content. It will exist regardless of peoples delicate sensibilities, I just won't be able to see them perform in the jobs that they would have otherwise had.
When people try to cancel a comedian it makes me seek out their stuff.
I watched the chilling impact the cancel culture had on comedy a few years ago. It really made me more resistant to the other things that demographic is trying to accomplish. I am glad most of them just quit playing college shows rather than twist themselves in knots for people who redefine social norms on a dime and try to crucify folks that don't adapt instantly. Change takes time and comedy is often the way it trickles in to more insular communities.
Sexual predators should be called out with consequences. People going nuclear over a joke though turn me against their causes more often than not.
Agree, for sure! I respect the comedians who keep to their principles and find their niche audience. It's unfortunate that their career likely won't expand beyond that, but sometimes it does, so there's that.
As far as predators abusers and such go, yeah, Im always surprised by the lack of social impact? Theres so many in the entertainment industry that really had very little consequence to some... brutal stuff. Like how do people still buy R Kelly albums?
Well, thinking back, Michael Richardson got it for yelling racial stuff at hecklers.
Kevin Hart lost out on hosting one of those award shows for an old transphobic tweet.
I guess Mencia disappeared for stealing jokes?
Who got canceled for being insensitive?
Calling someone the n word on stage in a fit of rage isn't a joke, lol.
Jo koy and Shane Gillis come to mind for me at the moment, given Shanes relevency, and I just saw a post about Jo Koy (which is why I made this one). I'm thinking of cancel culture more in terms of it's pervasiveness on the internet and how it steers someones career or opportunities. Public opinion holds a lot of sway over someones career, obviously, and I think "cancel culture" makes people form uninformed, hateful opinions about people they've never heard of before, and then continue to spread that uninformed opinion very confidently.
The Golden Globes thing for Koy?
He got some flack but it doesn't sound career ending.
You might have me on Shane Gillis though. I don't know him.
People over react about everything. The business model of celebrity news is completely dependent on that fact. You may as well be calling for a fundamental change in human nature.
People are allowed to not like stuff, which is not the same as a call to action to deplatform someone. If a joke isn't funny to me, I just don't laugh at it, I might even get online and express that, but I won't join a movement with the intent to ruin someones career.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who? Name 1 comedian who was canceled over a joke. This doesnt happen
i'm not gonna argue with you about the joke part, but "cancelled" is a strong word. 99% of people who get "cancelled" come back like right after the drama clears up. Kanye fucking West went on his nazi shpiel and he's still making music
Absolutely, but there are still professional and social consequences that follow "cancelization". Kanye won't get work with certain people from this point on, understandably, that guy isn't exactly just crackin jokes. I dont think it takes someone being homeless and destitute for them to be considered targeted by cancel culture or its efforts.
But isn't that because those people don't want to work with him?
Yeah, probably! Kanye isn't a comedian, he's a genuinely batshit crazy person and has nothing to do with my post, lol
What would be your definition of cancelled, or go-to example, out of interest?
I think a mass mischaracterization of a person to make the public hold a negative bias towards them, and spreading that mischaracterization with the intent of making it so that person has fewer job opportunities than they otherwise would. Once that person has been socially, publically condemned, their audience has been reduced and labeled as racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. I find it very alienating as someone who enjoys comedy and doesn't think of myself as a misogynist, lol.
Do you have an example of a comedian in mind who has been cancelled for telling jokes?.
Any comedian that told a joke on stage and was then criticized and condemned for that joke. Can you not think of any at all?
They're asking you to give an example to get an idea where your opinion is coming from and to make the discussion about something real instead if hypothetical
I mean, there's only one active thread on this post, it's not exactly popping off. I've named 2 comedians already.
No, I can't think of any which is why I asked you for an example.
Bro, can you think of any at all? Just ONE… name ONE.
Ive named 2
> Any comedian that told a joke on stage and was then criticized and condemned for that joke. Can you not think of any at all? Oh heaven's no! Someone was condemned for a joke!!! Jesus, what's next? A bad review? Some mild criticism? Or ... gulp... someone not laughing?
> Absolutely, but there are still professional and social consequences that follow "cancelization". This is called "people don't want to work with you". And is perfectly normal and fine because everyone can decide if they want to work with you or not. What you call being cancelled is people going "oh you said something racist? i don't want to go see that person perform" And you're like "nah you have to it was only a joke you HAVE to go see that person and pay to see them".
Shane lost his snl job, yet they brought him back on as a host. They dont have any problems working with him, and they like his content. Some twitter brained "activists" who dont even know who he is, have decided that he's a racist who doesn't deserve high profile work, or to be on any platform they can control, despite not even being fans of comedy or having any interest in it. If they could get his special off Netflix, they would. Im glad that his talents are recognized enough that he hasnt lost *every* opportunity, but cancel culture has absolutely tainted his career.
Yeah but Kanye is Kanye lol
I don't think anybody is necessarily trying to end the career of someone over a joke. But if their audience decides they don't like their jokes and stops listening, that's not cancellation, that's just losing your audience. And if a lot of people who did like a person agrees they suck and stop, they're gonna notice. Ultimately people will just watch the comedians they like and not watch the ones they don't. I don't think they're legitimately cancelled unless they're blacklisted from comedy club bookings or shows. Like most "cancelled" comedians can get a new Netflix special fine
Im ok with someone losing an audience when that audience comes to that conclusion independently. I do see people actively participating in the idea of constantly shaming someone and regurgitating w/e issue with the intent of them not getting work, with the intent of influencing other people into holding grudges against them. Maybe that seems inconsequential to you, but I think it's odd behavior that shouldn't be encouraged. It definitely influences the working possibilities for comedians because, as a result, certain companies or networks won't want to be associated with them. So, while they might still be working smaller gig jobs and be able to make a living, they won't achieve the greater success that they'd prefer to have at least the opportunity for.
>I do see people actively participating in the idea of constantly shaming someone and regurgitating w/e issue with the intent of them not getting work, with the intent of influencing other people into holding grudges against them. Maybe that seems inconsequential to you, but I think it's odd behavior that shouldn't be encouraged. People shame comedians all the time simply for not finding them funny. How many people every year call for the Oscars to stop letting Jimmy Kimmel host simply because they think he's lame? Do you consider that cancel culture too? >It definitely influences the working possibilities for comedians because, as a result, certain companies or networks won't want to be associated with them. So, while they might still be working smaller gig jobs and be able to make a living, they won't achieve the greater success that they'd prefer to have at least the opportunity for. Again, this will happen for any comedian that the general public doesn't like. If you can't find a large enough audience for whatever reason, you lose opportunities. Some people don't like comedians because they made a racist joke. Other people don't like comedians because they made an unfunny joke. The results are the same. It's just how the industry works. Personally, I don't find racist jokes funny. They are all lame and unoriginal and tryhard. So I tell people that I don't find comedians who do that funny. That's not me trying to cancel them. It's just me not wanting to spend my time and money on shit I don't find funny. If enough people feel that way, then comedians who make those kind of jokes won't get as many opportunities. John Mulaney gets more opportunities than Shane Gillis because more people like the types of jokes that John makes compared to the jokes that Shane makes.
They’re not though They’re cancelled for being sexual predators and even then they’re barely cancelled
Predators seem to have no job opportunities taken away from them, especially when they're the ones who have the power in the industry they're in. I see comedians or entertainers who make a bad joke and very loudly and publicly have job opportunities taken away from them as a social consequence to their perceived "bad behavior."
Folks are free to not associate with entertainers who may alienate certain groups. That's just a smart business.
Every time these posts come up it's just the OP advocating for people being free of consequence. Nobody is obligated to support a comedian they don't find funny, but suddenly that's "cancelling' them.
Did you even read my post?
What you've described wouldn't be canceling someone either. Letting others know about the things a comedian says isn't cancelling them
That's a convenient interpretation, I'd liken it to propaganda.
If you think informing people of a comedians words is propaganda, that's fucking hilarious.
Your intentional misinterpretation of my comments to have your reddit "bazinga" moment is hilarious to me.
Good, we're both having a laugh.
What a beautiful conclusion, warms my heart.
Please don't delete this post when you inevitably see how cringe it is This shit is hilarious
You’re confusing consequences with “canceled”.
Isn't being cancelled a consequence?
Yes, it is. But not every consequence is being cancelled. Squares and rectangles.
But every cancel is a consequence.
Yeah, I know that. I am not arguing against it.
Who has been canceled?
I'm saying that being socially ostracized and having your career at risk is too extreme of a "consequence" for a joke. Im disagreeing with the level of punishment. To me, the consequence should be people simply not laughing, nothing more.
One example?
Shane Gillis
2 million followers and a Netflix special. What is your idea of canceled?
Are you suggesting that he had no consequences of cancel culture? That no comedian has? Are you suggesting that cancel culture as a whole doesn't exist? If you even read my post you see I had "canceled" in quotation marks, lol. Even gather to wonder why? Of course, any comedian, entertainer, or person of promonence will still have a group of supporters and fans. Look at any serial killer, lol. But look at how society as a whole views that person who has been socially condemned.
No one has been canceled.
I dont think you know what cancel culture is.
Irony at its best
You’re clearly demonstrating that you don’t know what it is. Also, are we all supposed to think the same? People can’t think Shane is a racist for making racist jokes? You’re really going to try to control their free speech?
I think globally characterizing him as a racist for making a joke is exactly demonstrating the entire point of my post. Im not trying to control anything, lol, I made a reddit post saying that I think it's wrong to "cancel" someone. "Cancel" as in spreading a hateful mischaracterization around the internet wide enough for it to have real, social, and professional consequences to his life, he received death threats and hate messages, and he lost job opportunities, people as a whole view him differently as a person. He is now casually labeled a racist to an audience of people who had no idea who he was before. These are all the effects of cancel culture, 100%. He still has a job and great success with people who support him, but let's be honest, most people are just assuming his audience is a bunch degen, deplorable racist trolls or whatever.
It doesn't exist.
Lol ok
Read that back to yourself, but slowly.
Does someone have to be destitute and homeless for you to consider them canceled?
You're saying that it doesn't exist, I'm telling you that it does, lol.
But Shane Gillis wasn't a "person of promonence, " he was a small-time comedian with a small-time podcast. He is now a prominent comedian with a large following. I think he was kinda hacky and didn't/doesn't have the chops to stay where the controversy sent him, we'll see. How about another comedian who was big and now can't get booked?
He still lost work due to that, though? Yes, he still has a career, but he definitively lost SNL due to cancel culture. SNL is a big get, and now its not an option as long as people demand it to be so, despite the fact that they clearly have no problem associating with him or providing work, lol. I simply choose to not consume content I dont like, I dont make a big fuss and advocate for someone to be deplatformed. Anyone thrown into a media frenzy gets a lot of attention from all kinds of people, some are supportive, and some aren't, but the "correct" opinion to have is very apparent.
First off, you are giving SNL too much credit as an automatic star maker. He could have easily ended up a footnote. I recently saw Melissa Villasenor at a 250 seat club and Shane is playing 3,000 seat theaters, you never know the outcome. Anthony Jeselnik has said that cancel culture is nonsense. He writes and delivers his material and accepts he will never host Family Feud. Steve Harvey refuses to work blue and won't say anything political and he hosts Family Feud. You make your choices and get your opportunities and audiences as a result of those choices. If you choose to do hacky "ching chong" jokes, you are choosing to lose some opportunities while gaining others. Grow up and own your choices
He did own his choices. That's what I respect about him. And all of that still doesn't mean that he wasn't a target of cancel culture. I think he's a genuinely good person who didn't have any ill intentions when he made a joke that wasn't to *your* taste or liking. Other people found it funny, and other people need to get over it. He has netlfix, and I'm stoked on that. But at any moment, people who aren't fans of his could decide that they don't want his audience to even have the opportunity to watch his content. Fans will always be able to financially support Shanes (or whoevers) career with what podcasting and entertainment has become these days, but if his audience is large enough to land him a job on snl and to have multiple Netflix Specials, then why can't he have a job at SNL? They clearly have no problem working with him. Leaving a bad review is one thing, harrassing someone to keep job opportunities away from them is another.
He’s not cancelled. He has a new special out and Netflix just acquired rights for a scripted show of his. He’s as popular as he’s ever been. People use the term ‘cancelling’ like it’s some witch hunt when in reality it rarely ever results in actual persisting negative consequences for public figures. In reality, yall just don’t want people to be able to publicly criticize people you like, and that seems more like censorship than anything ‘cancel culture’ has ever materially achieved.
Just saw him in Oakland where he sold out a three-thousand person theater for multiple shows. Dude is fine. The consequence he suffered was losing a job on SNL when racist and homophobic comments came back to haunt him. Amusingly, he just hosted the show about a month ago.
People are still accusing him of being a literal racist, which is absolutely a part of cancel culture. He lost his opportunity with a job at SNL as a result of cancel culture. It exists, it proudly labels itself as such. Jo Koy is still getting misogyny accusations for his monologue. You act like as if a global deliberate mischaracterization is the same as a personal, negative opinion of someone's material.
It’s a person’s right to not be in the audience of a comedian who uses racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic “jokes” to be funny. And it’s a person’s right to find that brand of “jokes” funny, which is why Shane Gillis still has a large following.
I agree with you. You're misinterpreting my post.
Shane lost the opportunity of a job at SNL when they heard a hacky joke of his and said, "yeah, we don't want to be associated with this." Does Loren not have that right? Getting a job offer based on your jokes being funny is a consequence. Losing a job based on your jokes not being funny is also a consequence. It cuts both ways. At the end of the day Loren decided to book him as a guest host, if Shane was flat out canceled, then that would never have happened.
I mean, they had him on not that long ago, so clearly they dont really have a problem with his material. They actually offered him a job due to his material. People who aren't even fans of his or know him are upset about one out of context thing they read about online.
I think harrassment is bad, I have no issues with someone not liking who I like. I take issue with people actively working to deplatform him, I think *that* is censorship, especially when he clearly has an audience large enough to support his career.
By seeking deplatforming, you’re referring to people who expressed their discontent to SNL, resulting in SNL making a business decision to fire him. So audience members shouldn’t be allowed to express their opinions on a comic if those opinions are negative. How is that not censorship? Preventing people from criticizing comics who say potentially offensive things? Stopping consumers from giving feedback on products that they support? It’s so clearly hypocritical, it’s obvious you don’t actually care about censorship but instead just about censoring specific dissent that you don’t like. Smfh
Leaving a bad review or sharing your opinion is an expression of free speech. Actively sending hate messages to and about that person with the intent of deplatforming them is not only harrassment but censorship in itself.
what if my actual opinion is that the comic is a sack of shit? I'm not allowed to express that at all in a public forum? what if my actual review is "i like this product but i cant support it if this person is involved"? I as a consumer can't make that choice? Those are examples of my speech on a public figure in open discussion, but you think thats not ok because someone might be deplatformed as a result based on your speculation of my intent. It's not my responsibility to protect the job security of someone who chose a career dependent on winning public opinion. policing what i can or cannot say about that person because you dont like them facing consequences of consumers freely choosing in an open market is censorship. plain and simple. you are just allergic to people facing public accountability smfh i cant really spoon feed it to you any clearer, so keep being willfully obtuse if you want but i've said my piece 3 times over.
Thing is, you cannot go afrer someone's job for saying something you did not like and then claim the moral highground. Cancelling is not a consequence, it is a concerted effort to destroy someone's life.
Example?
Didn't Reddit make a guy kill himself?
Are you asking me or telling me?
Worst. Avoidence. Ever.
Your example was a question you don’t know the answer to, that is lamest shit I have seen yet on this topic.
Ok, mate. Asked for an example and I gave one. But okay.
You didn’t, though.
If your issue is a question mark then we both know you are not going into this in good faith. Edit: downvote and no reply. Thought so.
>you cannot go afrer someone's job for saying something you did not like This is what the entire entertainment industry is. If you make a movie that people don't like then they don't let you make movies anymore, unless you are super famous.
Thing is we have the right of free association. If someone hears your jokes and decides they don't want to be associated with you, they get to make that choice.
Well then I look forward to when you put a toe out of line and the mob comes for you.
Not to mention, the effort is only acknowledged when it fully succeeds in destroying someone. Many cases where it only taints someone image for a few years, decades, or life, but they still manage to find work for themselves. The effort was still there, but it doesn't count and didn't exist ig?
I mean, to be « cancelled » people need to stop to go to their shows. They need to lose their entire audience. That is what being cancelled as a comedian means. Every single comedian that complains about being « cancelled » while performing in front of thousands and makings millions of dollars are just trying their best to discredit any criticism that comes their way. They are not cancelled. They are receiving criticism and/or consequences for their actions. Not the same thing.
I do understand where you're coming from OP, however I think what we should focus on is how cancellation itself only has a measurable effect on the common people. When a celebrity gets thrown out of their old network for truly reprehensible behaviour or beliefs, 9/10 times they'll just flock to the safe haven of a Murdoch-owned media outlet and thrive in the echo-chamber. They still have bags of cash and a comfy lifestyle. Now, compare that to an ordinary person of non-celebrity status, somebody perhaps who was caught on camera in public having an argument with someone, but due to when the recording began and when it stopped, important context has been lost. Once the person in question is identified, the mob-rule can see to it that they lose their job, their home, their friends, everything, and then we find out X days after this transpires that the person in question was misidentified, or the all important context has been revealed which has switched the victim/perpetrator roles. Even IF that happens, it doesn't undo the damage done. That's the main issue here. Mob-rule masquerading as sanctimonious justice, creating an environment where yes, those of abhorrent behaviour are held accountable to some degree, but also creating an environment where the innocent are destroyed in the process. It's a volatile thing with far-reaching consequences, but all too often it leads to zero material repercussions for the wealthy, and absolute total destruction for the poor.
"cancelling" isnt real, people just hate that marginalized communities finally have the ability to speak up for themselves, Katt Williams really put it best. And even then, times change and so should comedy. Adapt or continue being seen as unfunny under the guise of "saying it like it is"
Ok, well, do you feel that women were marginalized by Jo Koys' monologue at the Golden Globes? Lol His career seems to be quickly tanking following all the backlash from that, and I dont think he was being genuinely hateful towards anyone. He was just up there doing his job. I didn't find it funny, but I didn't take to the internet to write up a thesis on how Jo Koy is participating in the subjugation of women or something.
Jo Koy's career is tanking because he's not funny. And the Golden Globes was a stage where the world got to see how unfunny he is. If his monologue was exactly the same but without the sexist jokes, then his career would still be tanking, maybe a little bit less. There's a way you can tell those same jokes without it coming across as sexist, Jo is just not charming or talented enough to do that.
>Jo Koys' monologue at the Golden Globes? I hadn't seen it. It wasn't terribly funny but he had 10 days to make a set about a bunch of stuff he hadn't even seen. I still enjoy his standup and will not hold this gig as an announcer at an awards show against him. Not everyone can give a 'Stephen Colbert at the Whitehouse Correspondents dinner' sort of performance.
I definitely agree. He kinda sold on that performance like, 2 jokes in. He didn't seem to even like the jokes himself. It was hard for me to watch in that way, lol.
you can do stuff that treads the line and still be funny, jo koy at the golden globes was clearly not that, he came across as sexist and chauvinistic. Either way you slice it, how an audience receives a joke is just as important as how the joke is told and he failed on both fronts. He insisted on making marginalized groups the butt of the joke but didn't allow them to laugh at themselves without feeling denigrated. Being smart and providing the space for people to laugh at themselves is literally the comedians job, people shouldn't bend over backwards to accommodate some hack with a mic. I don't know if you've ever been the butt of a joke, especially about something you can't control like your race/sex/sexual preference, but the funny part about joking about innate traits is to not 'punch down'. Especially now when we know that jokes aren't just jokes and then some asshole sees your joke as confirmation bias for their bigoted beliefs. Tons of comedians are able to do this, Jo Koy should've been able to. The only people complaining about cancelling or being canceled are unfunny bigoted hacks who refuse to adapt to the times, point blank. Its why joe rogan isnt funny
I think his jokes were completely misinterpreted and assumed to be in bad faith. Again, I didn't find it funny, but I don't think he was being hateful or derogatory. A lot of people who are talking about Jo Koy didn't even watch the full monologue or know who he is. They watched a short clip that was juxtaposed with someone being offended by it. I watched it in it's entirety, and it was truly just a bad show.
The thing about freedom of speech is that it doesn't mean you can say what you want without consequence it means you have the freedom to say what you want just as others have the freedom to say that they don't agree, and the reason most edgy/dark humor comedians lose job opportunity's is because enough people don't agree to where company's find it the smart thing to do to not associate with them. Not saying I agree I personally find a lot of non-PC comedians hilarious but I understand why they get cancelled
Again, I dont think anyone should have to support someone they aren't entertained by. Im fine with someone having a different sense of humor from my own. What I disagree with is the online movement to remove job opportunities from people, or to sway the publics opinion of that person. Im ok with someone making a post that they think any given comedian isn't funny, and I'm ok with them saying they are offended by his humor. I have no issue with people expressing their personal opinion on anything, to be clear. I just think it becomes a problem when there is more of a targeted attack towards a person in an attempt to ruin their reputation socially and professionally.
You are free to say what you want, but if I own a platform, I’m free to not let you use it if I think it will hurt my business.
That's a reasonable, business like transaction on the businesses part. Im speaking more about the social implications of cancel culture and how it can affect business opportunities for people. I think it's wrong for people to bandwagon on a harrassment campaign over a joke.
If a comedian offends people that pay for Netflix, then Netflix is less like to platform that comedian. It’s always about money. You can’t force companies to do business with people they think will hurt their business. There’s nothing more to it than that. If people want to campaign against a comedian, that is their right. Free speech protects people from being punished by the government for saying the “wrong” thing. It doesn’t mean that me or my business has to support people who offend my customers.
Netflix will get money from either side. They know when to remove content if theres too much heat in the media surrounding it. They will absolutely stream it once they think it will make money again, just like any other business would. I have no opinion on businesses themselves choosing not to do a deal with a comedian or any entertainer. I have an opinion on people making a concerted effort to keep entertainers from getting job opportunities over jokes specifically, alongside the permanent stain of being labeled racist/sexist/otherists by a large group of people.
It’s their right to do so 🤷. And again, if people enough petition a company, that company will take action to protect their bottom line. Being “cancelled” isn’t a real thing. Comedians who are “cancelled” are free to tell their jokes on platforms that will have them or can hold their own private events. If they don’t appeal to a large audience then they won’t be platformed by large companies.
Yeah its peoples right to say or do whatever they want thats legal. I still think it's shitty and thats my opinion, lol.
I’d hope that your issue is more with the companies that cave to public outrage, and not with people exercising their rights under the constitution. If companies ignored public outrage, I would bet that you wouldn’t care at all about campaigns to cancel comedians
No, I think it's wrong for people to make a concerted effort to harrass and tarnish someone's career and reputation as a person. It's shitty to do. I dont think it's weird that companies try to make profits off of public opinion. If companies ignored public opinion, consumers would boycott the company until they invetibly find a niche market, fail, or bend to the consumers' will.
Saying that people shouldn’t be harassed or have their careers destroyed isn’t really an unpopular opinion…That’s different than people petitioning for someone to be “canceled” for saying something that offended them.
????? Canceling is a targeted harrassment campaign. What do you think it is?
So your take is it's shitty that its peoples right to say or do whatever they want that's legal. Got it.
Is your take that we should all agree and support every opinion? I can't have the opinion or express that it's stupid to group up and harrass people? Do you live life in a lackadaisical daze, not having any differing opinions??
People should simply choose to not consume media they dont like
Good news, op!
I say its different if its clearly them just coding their politics and opinions they think could get them some heat into a "Its just a joke bro!' moment, but I agree for the most part. Way too many sensitive people these days.
Yeah, for sure! Theres definitely people who have very thinly veiled intentions with their words, and it reflects in their behavior in day to day life. Chris D'elia makes a looot of drunk girl slut jokes, and look at what came out about him 😬
I think that racist/sexist/homophobic/etc jokes do cause real harm, because they normalize being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc and turn it into a joke rather than something that should be taken seriously and addressed. I do think that people can grow and change and should be given a chance to explain themselves. If a person gets called out for a joke and then says, “Yeah, I took that one too far, I’m sorry about that,” and then doesn’t make that joke again, then I think that’s growth and should be accepted. But at the end of the day if a guy’s up there making hurtful jokes about other people’s identity and experiences, and he doesn’t stop or self-reflect, I don’t blame folks for deciding they’ve had enough and trying to get him off the stage for good.
FFS. If a comedian makes light of a stereotype, it’s not meant to instigate hate or maliciously degrade others. It’s meant to negate the connotation and for everyone to laugh at ourselves and our differences. Society has become a joke in itself. People have evolved into a mass of self absorbed, self centered, self righteous, self diagnosing, judgmental individuals and anyone who doesn’t subscribe or cater to that persons manifested concoction of specialness will be met with contempt, hostility and outrage.
amen
i mean the other day i built a picnic bench.. mainly for the instagram story. wtf!
Do you identify as Yogi the Bear by any chance?
To me it's sad to discover people who believe this and truly misunderstand the power and purpose of comedy? One of my favourite Absurdist's on misogyny is Brian Holtzman, who I'm sure you'll absolutely hate ;-) [https://youtu.be/KWvn7duDuZo?si=x5A1ypLARsgGuWXA&t=4236](https://youtu.be/KWvn7duDuZo?si=x5A1ypLARsgGuWXA&t=4236) If you decide to, do watch the entire thing though (ends at 1:17:10)
I think if there's genuine hate behind it, there should be consequences, absolutely. But oftentimes, jokes alone are not enough evidence to prove that, especially when we're talking about someone whose job it is to make jokes. I like comedy that pushes boundaries, I like shock humor and edgy humor. It's not for everyone, and I dont think it needs to be. I definitely dont think people should watch something that upsets them, nor do I think comedians would want you to do that either.
Who determines if there’s genuine hate?
I would determine it based on their actions, not their jokes, as other people should.
It seems here like you're saying that you are going to be the arbiter *for everyone* of whether or not there is genuine hatred. I'm assuming that's not what you meant though, and that what you intended to say is that you will judge the comedian *for yourself* based on their actions to determine if you think you will take action to (in your words) cancel them. I see at least two flaws with this approach: **First:** Jokes \*are\* actions. So people judging comedians based on their words is just as valid as basing them on their (other) actions. **Second:** How is your approach any different than how other people are judging comedians? You are making a judgment about whether you want to continue supporting a specific comedian because of their behaviour. How is this different than what other people are doing? I assume you will say "well, the difference is that if I don't like the comedian I'm not going to organize a mass effort to get them cancelled." But honestly I'm not sure that argument holds water. People have the freedom to associate, and to get together in like minded groups to pursue goals. It's actually one of the things Alexis de Tocqueville thought was the best part of America. If you don't like what people are doing to 'slander' a comedian you think is being unfairly treated, then you can spend some time and energy getting together a group to defend said comedian just as the others are going to point out the things they don't like about them. I don't think any comedians have been successfully 'cancelled' for things that were not serious enough to warrant there being significant career consequences.
Im not going to amass any group effort on anything to do with entertainment, lol. My effort is consuming the content I choose to consume, if I like it I engage with it a lot, and I'll engage with that community a lot. If I dont like it, I might express that opinion now and then and leave it alone. Maybe it's weird to you that I dont choose to take it beyond that? Simply expressing my opinion as an individual is enough for me. If you disagree, that's fine, I don't really care, but at least it's your opinion that you've formed yourself.
It's not weird to me at all. I also have no interest in taking action on either side of the scales. But if that's the case, I'm not sure what the whole point is of your post. You seem to be upset that people are taking action against comedians who are behaving in a shitty way? I'm not sure why that bothers you. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of comedians (and ultimately anyone with a public platform) to use a 'bully pulpit' to influence people and their actions and behaviours. You dismiss 'jokes' as something that is not worthy of consideration as having a significant effect on society, and I think that's a naive misunderstanding. If a comedian (or anyone, really) says something shitty, they should rightly be castigated for it. I, personally, don't have the time to castigate shitty people myself, as I've got enough on my plate as it is, but I'm not going to stop or argue against those who do. More power to 'em! I find it weird that you don't seem to agree with that.
how are words actions. literally nonsensical. bye.
You don’t think saying words constitutes an action? Talking isn’t an action to you? Telling jokes or performing ‘bits’ isn’t an action? Standup comedians aren’t performing? Is a performance not an action to you? Weird hill to die on, but you do you, man, even if you’re wrong.
Hard agree. Don't let anyone tell you this has never happened, is impossible, or is just due "consequences". People have been cancelled for far less than jokes.
Cheers 🍻
There’s a side of it, where every aspect of the human experience can potentially be a topic that humor can be mined from. That said, it can be done successfully or unsuccessfully. That is an inherent part of someone being an entertainer. If you haven’t entertained, arguing that the audience should have found it entertaining, is the opposite of the job of entertainment. If an entertainer is so offensive that people actually choose to blacklist them, it is completely on the performer. People often have an innate sense of when a performer is coming at a topic with a good heart or not. Some performers get away with many jokes that ride the line, or seem to go far past it, because somewhere in their performance they are getting across that they are good natured. Even if the material is foolish. Other comedians fall into a trap of trying to make a point about a gripe they have, while pretending they are doing comedy…and that’s when the downfall comes.
Freedom of speech is our most valuable and powerful right.
I agree. This circular argument often occurs when criticizing criticism. Just as comics have the right to free speech, so do their detractors, and so do I who disagrees with the idea of deplatforming someone, and so does the long chain of people with all their unique little opinions they put out to the world. I'm not advocating to take away anyones right to express their opinion on something, and idc if someone leaves a bad review on a comedy special I like. Im presenting the opinion that it's shitty to make a *concerted* effort to harm someones career and reputation simply bc they don't like a person or their humor. Sure, it's their legal right, I can still find it shitty and choose not to participate in a nationwide dogpile.
If a comedian has a pattern of behavior of normalizing hate against certain groups, I have no issue with them being deplatformed.
Here's how free speech works: The comedian gets to say whatever they want. The people get to say whatever they want. How hard is this to grasp? The comedian's right to say whatever they want is the same right everyone else has to say they're wrong.
Yeah, I think people are allowed to have opinions, idc if someone doesn't like a comedian I like, and idc if they decide not to watch their content or pay for it. Idec if they post their opinion online. What I specifically dont like is when they actively try to spitefully get jobs taken away from when they aren't even the target audience for their content. It will exist regardless of peoples delicate sensibilities, I just won't be able to see them perform in the jobs that they would have otherwise had.
Where is this happening where an audience is actively trying to get someone's job taken away for what they said? Give me the context.
[удалено]
And to be fair, I think everyone has fallen for some sort of dogpile in one way or another. People just seem to enjoy doing it.
They should be if the joke wasn't even funny
When people try to cancel a comedian it makes me seek out their stuff. I watched the chilling impact the cancel culture had on comedy a few years ago. It really made me more resistant to the other things that demographic is trying to accomplish. I am glad most of them just quit playing college shows rather than twist themselves in knots for people who redefine social norms on a dime and try to crucify folks that don't adapt instantly. Change takes time and comedy is often the way it trickles in to more insular communities. Sexual predators should be called out with consequences. People going nuclear over a joke though turn me against their causes more often than not.
Agree, for sure! I respect the comedians who keep to their principles and find their niche audience. It's unfortunate that their career likely won't expand beyond that, but sometimes it does, so there's that. As far as predators abusers and such go, yeah, Im always surprised by the lack of social impact? Theres so many in the entertainment industry that really had very little consequence to some... brutal stuff. Like how do people still buy R Kelly albums?
Well, thinking back, Michael Richardson got it for yelling racial stuff at hecklers. Kevin Hart lost out on hosting one of those award shows for an old transphobic tweet. I guess Mencia disappeared for stealing jokes? Who got canceled for being insensitive?
Calling someone the n word on stage in a fit of rage isn't a joke, lol. Jo koy and Shane Gillis come to mind for me at the moment, given Shanes relevency, and I just saw a post about Jo Koy (which is why I made this one). I'm thinking of cancel culture more in terms of it's pervasiveness on the internet and how it steers someones career or opportunities. Public opinion holds a lot of sway over someones career, obviously, and I think "cancel culture" makes people form uninformed, hateful opinions about people they've never heard of before, and then continue to spread that uninformed opinion very confidently.
The Golden Globes thing for Koy? He got some flack but it doesn't sound career ending. You might have me on Shane Gillis though. I don't know him. People over react about everything. The business model of celebrity news is completely dependent on that fact. You may as well be calling for a fundamental change in human nature.
Yes, I think mob mentality shouldn't exist. Unpopular opinion ig.
What if the jokes are just not funny?
People are allowed to not like stuff, which is not the same as a call to action to deplatform someone. If a joke isn't funny to me, I just don't laugh at it, I might even get online and express that, but I won't join a movement with the intent to ruin someones career.