5 ms·

I think we disagree on what that monologue was about. To me it wasn't about shock comedy at all, it was about pushing the boundaries of empathy and getting the

I think we disagree on what that monologue was about. To me it wasn't about shock comedy at all, it was about pushing the boundaries of empathy and getting the whole audience at once to realize they are, on some level, empathizing with the human experience of being a pedophile and also playing with what is on or off limits on mainstream television. It was even mentioned in the article here. To me a super long form joke about how child molesters are people too that pushes everyone who watches it into deeply uncomfortable territory is a far different animal that cracking a joke about someone being fat and ugly, for example, or Jay Leno's jokes about Monica Lewinsky, etc.

jessriedel 11y ago
Independent of whatever trojan-horse message you want to read into it, the humor clearly comes from saying something shocking and offensive: that children could be sexually attractive in some circumstance. This is obviously much more shocking and offensive than someone being fat and ugly or Jay Leno's jokes about Monica Lewinsky. There are lots of other places where we might "push the bounds of empathy", e.g., "What would it be like to be an ant? Should they be angry we step on them all the time?". But that wouldn't be shocking and offensive, and consequently it's not nearly as funny. I encourage everyone to watch the bit and see where you think the humor comes from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crjrWF-RRlg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crjrWF-RRlg It's funny, but it's not deep or intellectual.
- llamataboot 11y ago
  > Independent of whatever trojan-horse message you want to read into it Well, someone wasn't an English major! Didn't know their was anything dastardly about trying to parse the context of any particular text. Like I said, we disagree about what he is doing in that bit.
  - jessriedel 11y ago
    Yes, I understand we disagree. That's why I was explaining why your interpretation didn't seem to square with the things people do and don't find funny.

jessriedel 11y ago

Independent of whatever trojan-horse message you want to read into it, the humor clearly comes from saying something shocking and offensive: that children could be sexually attractive in some circumstance. This is obviously much more shocking and offensive than someone being fat and ugly or Jay Leno's jokes about Monica Lewinsky. There are lots of other places where we might "push the bounds of empathy", e.g., "What would it be like to be an ant? Should they be angry we step on them all the time?". But that wouldn't be shocking and offensive, and consequently it's not nearly as funny. I encourage everyone to watch the bit and see where you think the humor comes from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crjrWF-RRlg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crjrWF-RRlg It's funny, but it's not deep or intellectual.

llamataboot 11y ago
> Independent of whatever trojan-horse message you want to read into it Well, someone wasn't an English major! Didn't know their was anything dastardly about trying to parse the context of any particular text. Like I said, we disagree about what he is doing in that bit.
- jessriedel 11y ago
  Yes, I understand we disagree. That's why I was explaining why your interpretation didn't seem to square with the things people do and don't find funny.