7 ms·
Loved the fact that this post didn't go where I expected it to (or at least, didn't remain there). That a book like this probably wouldn't be published today, o
by svat 1y ago
Loved the fact that this post didn't go where I expected it to (or at least, didn't remain there). That a book like this probably wouldn't be published today, or would be less popular today, is a point that has been made many times by many people, about many different books, TV shows, jokes, etc. But the author actually moves on from there; the observation is that even in his own opinion, the same joke isn't funny today — in fact, the equivalent thing being done today just looks “grubby”.
So it's something deeper than the usual “political correctness” debate: the question really is, what is it about the world today that trumps the hallowed British traditions of celebrating failure, of moaning, of affectionate self-mockery? Why isn't the joke funny any more, or why doesn't the mocking seem affectionate?
(He points at the malaise that exists today—it was only funny when there was some hope—but I'm not sure that's the only answer…)
- karlgkk 1y agoOften when someone, especially a comedian, complains about “political correctness”, what they actually mean is: nobody is laughing at the same joke I told 20 years ago Sensibilities change. The sense of what is and isn’t punching down changes. Even the appetite for punching down changes. People who whine about “PC” always pretend like it’s the death of comedy or speech or whatever, and yet… there are younger people building great careers! And yes, there is a real worrying erosion of free speech - but 98% these people could keep saying exactly what they’ve been saying - they’re just not getting the laughs they think they’re entitled to.
- vanviegen 1y ago> Sensibilities change. The sense of what is and isn’t punching down changes. Even the appetite for punching down changes. Yes, and the way it changes tells us something about our society, which I believe this article is trying to address.
- tempaway4738438 1y agoRead the article, its much more interesting and reflective that that
- karlgkk 1y agoI did, I’m just commenting one facet
- Chris2048 1y ago> Sensibilities change If people are literally calling the police, they aren't changing, they are being suppressed/punished. > they’re just not getting the laughs they think they’re entitled to Why are the comedians 'entitled' rather than the people who go to their show and complain?
- clown_strike 1y ago> Often when someone, especially a comedian, complains about “political correctness”, what they actually mean is: nobody is laughing at the same joke I told 20 years ago Don't rephrase others' sentiments to suit your own narrative. Soothsayers are bullshitters. When comedians complain about political correctness, there is no alternate meaning. They are upset that they can't tell the same jokes they told 20 years ago, to the same audiences from 20 years ago that continue to enjoy them, because external forces mob, heckle, and harass them so they cannot serve their customers... ...which conveniently provides opportunities for those younger people to "build great careers," by eliminating all legacy competition. In any other context it'd be driving the local kebab shop owner out of town because someone with influence wants to open a salad bar in its place. It's mob rule, not "social justice."
- immibis 1y agoMob rule is when people don't like my comedy any more. Got it.
- Chris2048 1y ago> Got it. No you haven't, and it seems you don't care to.
- djeastm 1y ago>mob rule Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved it's not. It's just a critical mass of people having opinions you don't like and voicing those opinions. If the market of ideas decides your ideas are not valuable anymore for whatever reason you're going to suffer what scarcity feels like.
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago> Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved Last time I checked the mob called for these people lives to be destroyed by asking for them to lose all possibility of ever having a job and threatening anyone who would employ them or support them of dire repercussions while slapping themselves in the back for what a positive impact they made. So yes, it’s very much about threat of violence.
- randomcarbloke 1y agocomedians no longer complain about that, contemporary comedy is merely repeating the commonly accepted societal mantrae, and laughing at and trivialising opposition or criticism to or of it. Wit, satire, and criticism are still funny, but aren't permissible.
- tempaeay4747274 1y agoThis is a good question..it just occurred to me that perhaps its because its so much easier for the people who would be the target of the joke to answer back now? Social media gives the possibility of instant reply, whereas if you publish a book in 2003 called 'crap towns' how can the so-called chavs answer back? Publish their own book? Write to the local paper? So its a side effect of how we can all hear each other better now (for better or for worse)
- overfeed 1y agoOh, that's insightful. Author could have encountered a light form of elite convergence 20 years ago when interacting with fellow writers and journalists, who probably didn't live in the blighted areas, and could take the joke on behalf of their cities. Being from a crap town is fine if you're don't live in the crappy part of town. I'll add that the decade-long austerity measures let people know that it's actual class warfare, and it's no longer a laughing matter as it was in 2003 when it seemed fixable. Now it's clear the people in charge are not interested in fixing anything. A joke about someone's health situation is received better if the condition is treatable, but less so of they are terminal.
- BlueTemplar 1y agoIt was 2003, not 1993 - the article even has a screenshot of people answering back online. The competing website they don't want to name has Internet Archive pages dating back to 2004.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Terr_ 1y agoThe same phenomenon exists when people talk about the movie Blazing Saddles. It's transgressive content worked because it was satirizing "wholesome" Wild West shows, holding up a funhouse mirror to their less-obvious absurdities and racist aspects. It was so successful, its targets don't exist anymore. https://youtube.com/watch?v=jzMFoNZeZm0 https://youtube.com/watch?v=jzMFoNZeZm0
- globalise83 1y agoI think the difference is between, let's say, Ricky Gervais making a joke about a little boy with cancer, and Ricky Gervais making a joke about THAT little boy with cancer right there in Seat 7G. Everyone now knows these crap towns are dying.
- HPsquared 1y agoIf someone looks a bit pale and sickly, it's often considered fair game to make fun of their appearance (eat some vegetables, get some exercise etc)... Whereas if they have severe health problems it's no longer tasteful. This fact has not changed, it's basic human decency. The situation is what's changed.
- eleveriven 1y agoHumor is as much about context as content
- randomcarbloke 1y agoand yet there is a whole youtube channel successfully doing the same