• OpenStars@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    I LOVE Anthony Jeselnik - he’s amazing, and I would pay to see him. I daresay that he’s one of my personal favorites.

    The difference is consent - if I pay to see him, then I want it, while if someone walks up to me (like at school) and says the identical words, that’s the difference.

    • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I would pay to see him as well but what the article insinuates is that “pushing boundaries with comedy” is just bullying with extra steps, which I heavily disagree with. Yes there’s a time and a place for it but something like this makes me feel like they’re taking a jab at harsher comedy as a whole.

      • OpenStars@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s not what I took from it at all. For one it’s The Onion community, so I presumed that this was satire from the start (even though I’ve never heard of this particular site before) and more importantly whereas Anthony Jeselnik is a master of his craft, the boy in the story seems portrayed as just a bully who is using whatever justification/excuse he can to avoid consequences for his actions? Hence by Occam’s Razor I went with the latter rather than the former.

        Fwiw, I agree with you insofar as that comedy needs special exemptions from the traditional rules of society bc otherwise it simply cannot be as effective in its job, in holding up a mirror to poke fun at society as a whole and thereby help us become better, plus do so with a smile on our faces:-).

        But walking up to someone and straight up calling them a “cunt” - that’s not comedy. On the other hand, paying someone to do exactly that? Now that’s comedy!:-P

        Anthony Jeselnik tells this joke: a blind guy walks up to him after the show, saying that he wants to hear more jokes making fun of blind people. Anthony goes, “You want to hear a blind joke? Okay here’s one:”, then just walks away. Classic! :-P

        • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Sure but The Onion satire always comes with a political message lightly baked into the surface. It seems more likely to me that they’re making comments about comedy in general and how comics who tell harsh or offensive jokes are just elementary school bullies playing it off as a joke. I’ve never heard a kid use the phrase “pushing boundaries with my comedy” whereas that’s definitely something a standup comic would say.

          That’s why the article rubbed me the wrong way. I still enjoy Dave Chappelle, Anthony, and comics who dare say unpopular shit through the lens of comedy. The Onion seems to disagree.

          • OpenStars@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Maybe, but then again if Chappelle is allowed to use edgy humor (and in my book, he always is!:-P), then so too is The Onion.

            They might even be doing it purely for the joke? As in whatever sounds most funny? I don’t read so much of The Onion anymore - it’s always full of ads and it’s been funny for decades but it’s always pretty much the same, just stating absurd things purely for the sake of absurdity, so… I get it, and move on. :-P

            Roasting is always a staple of comedy though, and if you step up onto the big stage, then you become fair game - so long as it is respectfully delivered (like, said in someone’s own act, not coming over to the recipient’s act and interrupting it, at least not without permission!:-P). So I presume that Chappelle and others can take care of themselves:-). The only force that could stop me from listening to Chappelle is Chappelle himself, and he shows no signs of that - he’s so insightful! (like about trans people: if you are trans in Texas, then you are “passing”, which still ain’t black! there is nothing whatsoever that Chappelle can do about his own skin color, which is a sobering reminder that not all civil rights are equal - some are are deadly as literal life & death!)

            Anyway, I did detect an undercurrent of a subversive message, but I thought it was the absurdity of young (white, especially wealthy) kids getting away with practically murder in today’s school environments. Also it has notes similar to Trump’s never getting anything pinned onto him, despite “telling it like it is” (except we know that that is not “how it is”). That kid is NOT doing comedy though, hence I did not go so far as to extend the hidden thoughts into the realm of comedy itself. Though I do not know that site “Reductress”, so maybe, if that’s a common theme there? I am just saying that it sounded more to me that he repeated a phrase that he heard often, without properly applying it to his own particular situation (again, using it as a “justification” rather than a “reason”), and the absurdity is not how a young kid behaves - b/c that’s understandable!:-P - but how the adults go along with it rather than push back, which is not!?!?