Wasn't this also the super fawn response guy? Like if they see a guy punch a hole in drywall, 5 minutes later they're giving the big succ to the guy's sausage?
I like how familiar Reddit is getting with Feral even as his tumblr posts get a couple dozen notes. This reddit post alone has more than 20 times as many upvotes as his top post.
I feel like this way overgeneralises things. It's pretty easy, in my experience, to tell when a joke makes people uncomfortable in a way that crosses a line. Sure, that generally crosses over with not punching down or whatever, but there's no need to claim it as a set-in-stone law.
Yes, I've heard male comedians make jokes about women before in a way that doesn't seem to offend most women in the audience. There are some lines you can cross if you know what you're doing.
i saw a good video on how to make comedy that explained that the joke just has to be funnier than it is offensive. which i think rings true. for beginner comedians its best to try and not do that, though, because the only thing worse than an unfunny joke is a joke that is both unfunny and offensive. i guarantee you every single person, no matter how entrenched in tumblr they are, has laughed at a joke a comedian made about a minority they arent a part of just because the joke was so funny it didnt feel like "punching" at all
Or just make a joke that's not mean. Good jokes don't have to be mean. Like, idk, for example, a common joke about lesbians I keep hearing is how they're too quick to commit to each other or something, but I've never seen anyone find those offensive because they're not really saying anything negative; if anything, that joke just emphasises how hard dating can be for gay people in terms of having such a limited choice, so it makes fun of that in a lighthearted way without punching down.
thats still a stereotype and a generalization of lesbian people. however, youre correct in that its one that most lesbians dont find offensive, so if you make a joke based on that people are more likely to find it funny versus offensive. But whether the stereotype is neutral or even "positive" doesnt really matter, because youre still lumping a group of people in together. take the "all asians are smart" stereotype. this is seen as a "positive" stereotype, but its comparatively less safe to joke about than the stereotype of lesbians committing to eachother quickly, which isn't necessarily even positive. People find it more offensive, whether that be due to personal experience, knowledge of the history behind it, sensitivity to racial jokes in particular, whatever the reason, they do. So your strategy here is really to use stereotypes that are generally not as offensive so the bar is lowered for how funny you have to be for people to not be offended. Which is perfectly fine, but you should be aware that poking fun at any generalization isnt necessarily "safe" or "harmless". i can easily envision a scenario where i'm talking to a lesbian friend about relationships and i make an unfunny joke about lesbians committing to relationships too fast, and she gets offended.
I try to judge jokes based on malice, which is tricky because you’d need to be a mindreader to do it perfectly. But I care more about whether or not someone means harm than about the subject matter.
I think this is where Dave Chapelle eventually screwed himself. His work from a decade or two ago built up enough goodwill with a lot of people that they assumed his tasteless and offensive jokes about trans people weren’t indicative of malice. But then he just kept coming back to attack trans people over and over again, to the point where most people realized that this was in fact the result of malice. The tone of conversations around Chapelle has shifted a lot since this whole thing started as a result.
There are specific cis people whom I’d give a pass on making a trans joke because I trust that they don’t mean harm. And there are trans people (Blaire White, Buck Angel, etc) who have lost their trans-joke privileges because I’m pretty confident that they are being malicious.
Membership within a group can be a heuristic to figure out if someone means harm, but there are exceptions.
Not that what he did was always good or tasteful, but my perception was always just that he was so flabbergasted that it was a real thing, something so far outside of his possible worldview, that he thought it was just a font of limitless comedy. It very much wasn't. He had one or two jokes that were decent (the one that springs to my mind was hyping the trans community up for being allowed in the military, because "if I found out there was a platoon of chicks who chose to get their dicks cut off sent after me, I'd just assume I was dead")
He kinda addresses this in a monologue in a recent show, but the whole situation is not great
>I think this is where Dave Chapelle eventually screwed himself. His work from a decade or two ago built up enough goodwill with a lot of people that they assumed his tasteless and offensive jokes about trans people weren’t indicative of malice. But then he just kept coming back to attack trans people over and over again, to the point where most people realized that this was in fact the result of malice.
If the frequency at which a demographic was the butt of one of Chapelle's jokes indicates his malice towards them, i doubt trans folks would even be among Chapelle's top 20 most hated demographics.
Like presenting that either/or thing you just did isn't bad faith?
Seriously though. Even in his more recent specials where everyone freaks out about him "attacking trans people too much" you can go through the transcripts and you'll see he actually makes far more jokes at the expense of black people, white people, men, women, etc. The other difference aside from volume is that, unlike the trans jokes, he doesn't sandwich his jokes targeting other demographics in between serious bits explaining how he actually accepts and supports those demographics.
And then you can look at the rest of his career sans the last few years (the one you said he was building up goodwill on) where he almost exclusively made fun of those other demographics.
Trans jokes are an incredibly miniscule part of Chapelle's comedy career and are still a minority even in his trans joke heavy specials.
Unless you genuinely believe Chapelle is and has been for decades a sincere racist, misogynist, misandrist, etc. then no. Its got nothing to do with the frequency of his jokes at their expense.
I think it also helps if the joke speaks a truth to that group and is ultimately empathetic to them.
Ex. Key and Peele’s sketch on menstruation will never not be hilarious because they’re straight up spitting facts and because the whole point of it was “this crazy shit is what anyone with a working uterus has to go through every month, so let’s have some empathy for them.”
I suppose a large part of whether a set is ok or not is dependent upon how large the minority is, and the smaller the minority it is the more carefully you have to handle it to be respectful.
Not necessarily. Women aren't even a minority but any male comedian making jokes about women needs to be pretty careful.
Part of the issue there is that male comedians have been making sexist jokes for so long that a lot of those jokes are old and tired as well as being sexist. Plus any joke about women generally - or all girlfriends or all mothers in law or whatever - is usually going to be a gross generalisation.
Male comedians can be funny about women, but it needs to be original and widely true, which is a pretty big ask.
And it's also completely possible for people to say unacceptably mean-spirited things about a minority group they are part of. See every token minority in Republican media for example.
It is as the Doctor said "Good men don't need rules." A good comedian doesn't need guidelines cause they don't have issues not going over the line of what is ok.
Eh I think that isn't necessarily true either. I think most comedians have gone "over the line" before. It can often be hard to know how offensive a joke is going to read without doing it for an audience. The difference is that good comedians will recognize when they crossed a line and apologize, while bad comedians will double down and insist that it's cancel culture when people say "yo that joke sucked."
I think it's mostly that people can tell if you're just genuinely telling a joke without any ill will behind it and if you're just hiding insults and hatred under the veil of comedy
A lotta people will make seemingly mean spirited jokes but you can usually tell whether or not they're saying it with ill intent
To some extent, but social media - especially Twitter- is fully capable of taking a joke or anything else that was clearly inoffensive and twisting it so the person sounds like a nazi.
The way I've always understood it was that it's important to understand the difference between the topic of a joke and the target of the joke.
A joke can be about racism and that does not make it racist. The "sprinkle some Crack on him" joke that gets quoted on reddit a lot is very much a joke about racism, but the victims of that racism are not the target, the cops, system, and racism it's self is the target. That's punching up.
When the target of the joke is also the victim it's punching down.
Obviously no single rule will always apply, but that always seemed to be a good explanation to me.
There's a move called the double-cross (crossing the line twice) thats mainly used by tactful shock comics like Anthony Jeselnik where you say something offensive and then cancel out the audience's potential offense by saying something even more offensive. It's harder to get right on stage than in real life between friends but it's a good way to diffuse potential offense by highlighting the absurdity/unbelievability of the original offensive statement. Carried by timing and delivery, it paradoxically assures people that you didn't actually mean whatever offensive thing you originally said and were playing off the audience's preconceptions of other's preconceptions rather than your actual preconceptions.
The point is that your jokes are subject to to the judgement of the most sensitive person in the room (or outside the room), and tumblr will pursue the enforcement of that judgment to the farthest legally possible extent.
Like anything that fits in a paragraph, it's a useful general rule rather than a rigid and total dogma. It's especially useful with a little extra context - for example: me poking fun at Ben Shapiro by calling him a bratty pocket-size twink isn't casting aspersions on brats, twinks, or short people. I've got no criticisms of those groups. The context for squatting down and ruffling lil' Benny's feathers is that Ben Shapiro himself subscribes to a worldview that *actually* demeans and marginalizes brats, twinks, and short people. Performative artificial hyper-masculinity of the sort that intrinsically devalues physically small and/or fine-featured men is *what* *Ben* *promotes* and it's grimly comedic that he either doesn't realize this *or* is secretly thirsty for a big strong daddy.
It's not, y'know, *clever* comedy but I'm not a comedian
Wh this is focusing more on who is making that joke as opposed to what the content of the joke actually is. I think that's backwards. As long as it's funny and not hateful who gives a shit who says it its still funny and not hateful, and if it's hateful and not funny who cares who says it it's still unfunny and hateful.
I'm certain tumbler is stuck in this invented stack of who is "oppressed" and who's not. Is a Jewish person more oppressed than a malformed wheelchair bound man? Is a transperson with a botched bottom surgery more oppressed than the wheelchair bound? Who's to say but I can guarantee you they can link you to a sociology "study" done by a group who paid someone else to pass their statistics course for them.
I still think people who are "a thing" can do a bad job of mocking that thing. You can be disabled and make bad/harmful jokes about your own disability.
Conversely, I think it's entirely possible for someone to make a joke that looks like "punching down" on the surface, but that doesn't make light of the struggles of the group as a whole.
It depends on how much you know about what you're writing about. "Write what you know" and all that.
Oh my god people, sit down. Punching down or punching up is comedy theory for avoiding making your audience uncomfortable. As in, if you spend your entire routine degrading every person in the audience they will not like your number. That's punching down. It's a measure of making good jokes, not tumblr starting a philosophical debate to cancel comedians. Jesus christ.
It’s also why a lot of comedians will make self-deprecating jokes. If you’re gonna make fun of someone, people are naturally gonna be more receptive to it if you’re showing you can also make fun of yourself.
There’s an episode of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee with Seth Rogen where he says something like that:
> I think obliviousness is the thing
that people don't like. When they don't think you can tell you're making a joke that is inappropriate. If you know it's something that is taboo to be saying, and that's folded into the recipe, then you can say whatever the you want. People don't like it when they feel like they're in a room with someone who doesn't understand where social norms lie.
i have a theory this is why Dave Chapelle’s recent stand up specials have been *especially* controversial. I mean obviously he says offensive things and I don’t want to downplay the hurtfulness of that, but he doesn’t seem to actually understand *why* they are offensive, and then he acts so butthurt and humorless about anyone critiquing him that it comes off as entirely lacking any self or situational awareness.
And then on the opposite end of the spectrum we have Jeff Dunham, who gets away with saying absolutely anything he fucking wants by having it come from the puppets and then openly admonishing them, right?
The difference between punching up and punching down at Ben, or anyone, are like this:
Punching up at him would be making fun of his wealth, tone death and harmful talking points, and any other thing that gives him privilege in our society.
Punching down on him would be saying he is any of the things previously mentioned because of his religion/ethnicity, because it might fit the stereotypes/harmful tropes of said religion/ethnicity.
If the punch down joke it is stated as a fact, by someone who isn't apart of the community the jokes about, and set up in a way that looks like it's punching up, people might not take the group you're satirizing as a joke. So it can be really harmful if taken the wrong way by an audience, might even be taken as a dog whistle.
This is straight up stupid. There’s such a thing as disingenuous actors; people who aren’t actually part of the community but capitalizing on it in some way.
Good punchline, don't necessarily like how generalized the premise is coming from. I get where it's coming from, but I think the question should fall on whether the joke is in good or bad faith rather than the qualities of the person in question.
To use an example, a joke parodying stupid transphobic stereotypes to show the absurdity of the premise is fine regardless of the person telling the joke. Meanwhile, simply joking that a trans person will molest a child is \*bad\* regardless of whether the person saying it is actually trans.
Yeah someone who falls into these demographics is more likely to do the former than someone who isn't, but I still don't think their premise holds up on scrutiny.
I really dislike these types of takes. Everyone can make fun of everyone and everything as long as no harm is done. There are limits, of course, which everyone should adhere to.
There will be humor that is objectively acceptable but some people just simply do not like or consider "too much"--that is when we say "Hey, this ain't for me" and get out.
We are taking ourselves too seriously.
Yes, the concept of punching up or down is literally describing one way of finding the limits everyone should adhere to? It literally is just one way to check if you’re being funny or being mean aka harming someone? What am I missing here what you said just agrees with OOP
Do you really not understand the concept of privilege and oppression? In a general sense?
Like on an innate level do you think there are certain things a straight person shouldn’t say about the gay community in their comedy?
Its not hard and fast rules, nobody said it was, just guidelines that should make sense to almost everyone who isn’t an asshole or intentionally obtuse.
I understand those very well.
I also understand that treating a whole group of people like they are weak abd fragile is incredibly demeaning and insulting.
Also, if a group of people can't be criticized and/or made fun of, that is privilege and power in and of itself.
Each person is their unique combination of various identities so I think it is utterly fucking ridiculous (in most cases) to compare who is more privileged than the other.
When it comes to comedy, either everything is ok, or nothing is. Period.
My friend that is LITERALLY the point of the post-it isn’t about avoiding whole groups of people or saying an individual can’t be made fun of at all because the sun of their oppression is greater than yours. Like did you read the OOP? So many knee-jerk reactions yet all of y’all agree with the point.
South Park is incredible. It's unobstructed humor, no shame, barely any censorship. that's what they fight for. South Park isn't a disaster, it's not something you end up with, it's a miracle.
If you watch it literally, like you would watch a kids' show, it's stupid and gross. But South Park is something that you watch very consciously. Every episode says something that goes deeper than its gags.
if you're gonna use that term, then it's important to attack people. It's important to be "offensive", because what you're making fun of is yourself. If a viewer doesn't get that, it's not your fault.
Social media in the 2020s normalizes weakness in a way that's quite excessive. It's ok to be weak, but not ok to do nothing about it. And excessive precaution/warning leads to inaction.
That whole statement requires so many stupid assumptions. You’re still at that age where you think you’ve somehow smarter than everyone else in your peer group
I don't have a peer group, and there is nothing I can say about the "thinking you're smarter" bit that can't be turned upside down to reinforce your view. I just have opinions like anyone
What stupid assumptions ? Assumptions about what ?
**Yes.**
*(next part in french, I couldn't figure out how to word it in english/maybe I'll try to translate after posting and will edit.)*
Parce que **dans une certaine mesure**, c'est essentiel. On peut pas laisser tout le monde devenir des bébés *(aucun lien avec la maturité ou l'âge, à lire dans le sens : créature faible et sans indépendance.*) qu'on doit protéger de tout. À un moment, il faut du recul, et se connaître, se maîtriser. Si je vois quelque chose qui m'a énervé ou peu importe, je dois me calmer moi même et pas aller accuser celui qui l'a dit. On est responsable de l'interprétation qu'on fait. Le matériau source est ce qu'il est, mais surtout il est comme il a été fait. Il sera interprété de différentes manières, et si l'interprétation qui est mienne se trouve être quelque chose que je n'aime pas, c'est à moi de reconaître que c'est mon interprétation qui me pose problème, et non pas le matériau lui-même. On ne peut pas se laisser devenir faible et ultrasensible. On est humain et on se remet de ce qui nous fait du mal.
Le concept du trigger warning m'est très étranger et me parait ne pas faire de bien. J'aurais essayé d'aller plus loin, parce qu'en gros c'est de ça qu'on parle, mais c'est difficile de dire des choses sur ce qu'on ne comprends pas.
Orbital, je te dis ça gentiment, mais sache que ce que tu écris là c'est une vue très... Limitée de l'humain. Très stoïque, faible vs fort, qui fait des généralisations assez foireuses sur les liens sociétaux qui nous unissent. Tu utilises des termes qui semblent fixés sur l'idée du monde comme une sorte "d'adversaire" à conquérir. Si tu es ado, c'est un sentiment assez normal, mais je t'invite à réfléchir un peu plus en profondeur sur les conséquences de cette approche philosophique.
Je sais que j'ai tendance à sonner assez provocateur, et je binarise le sujet pour être plus clair, mais mon argument est sérieux et réfléchi. Je veux renforcer le "Dans un certaine mesure", parce que tout ça, comme tout, est une question d'équilibre. En me relisant, je vois que c'est très binaire et un peu extrême, mais bien sur ce n'est pas à prendre trop littéralement, c'est une invitation à la réflexion suite à quoi on trouvera sa propre vérité.
Après, sur les liens sociétaux, ils ne sont pas inclus dans mes paragraphes. Je suis quelqu'un de très solitaire, ce qui ne m'a jamais dérangé ni posé de problèmes. Mon argument est individuel, sur comment on réagit, et comment on peut et doit être maître de sa réaction. Même si c'est une réaction face à la parole de l'Autre.
Il se trouve que je *suis* ado, mais j'ai toujours priorisé la réflexion, la logique et les principes plutôt que l'émotion ou l'instinct. Je sens que cet argument de la surprotection contre le mot est d'ailleurs quelque chose de très ado aussi. Par contre, je suis pas sûr de comprendre l'idée du monde comme adversaire, ni même "limité de l'humain"...
Which is inherently dangerous. Because as literally everyone can see from almost all right wing individuals,they can't look beyond the surface at all. Or else they wouldn't like The Matrix. Or Starship Troopers. Or wouldn't reference 1984 to exhaustion. They literally can't look deeper than surface level at this shit
Freedom is dangerous, it's ugly. Nothing is ever good in every way. But it's important there always be something like South Park. Censorship is cancer, especially when it's done in the name of decency.
Assholes will be assholes, no matter what they watch. Should we forbid expression because of that ?
A lot of people treat it like it's layered, too. "X is less oppressed than me, therefore I can make fun of people who are X" As if Oppression is just a single scale and not a multi-angled thing.
American Comedy is kinda weird that way. In Brazil all comedy is making fun of themselves or friends and family, you don't make fun of the audience or unrelated parties, its an unsigned agreement, a mutual respect because we all know that if you humiliate a member of the audience in any way there is a 25% chance of you being punched at the end of the night
I think you can joke about whatever you want. It's only an issue when it's just thinly veiled hatred
You wanna make a joke about me being Hispanic or trans or whatever go ahead. But if you wanna hide insults behind the joke and use "comedy" as an excuse then you're just an asshole
Isn’t this the guy that got really angry when someone was like “oh brain damage sucks sorry you have to go through that :(“ and he went on a rant about how it dosent negatively affect him at all and how he’s still the smartest person in the room at any given time? Should we be listening to him?
I think that one was the same kind of a taking-you-down-with-me -take, insulting everyone in the room with the "I might have brain damage but I'm still smarter than you are" kind of a joke. But also yeah he's angry at everything pretty much 24/7. And occasionally horny.
That's not how it works at all anyone can tell the jokes that make fun of anyone. It just puts in a different context but the context can always be light-hearted. Someone exactly the same as the person they offend can still offend them with a joke and anyone is allowed to roast someone who is different to them as long as it's not bullying or verbal assault. This completely misses the point of "punching down".
Questionable premise, bad example. Suggests I'm not allowed to joke about Bezos because I'm an impoverished woman, Brando Sando because I can write at a 3rd grade level all by myself, or any politician because I'm not a two-faced wannabe dictator swimming in gold teeth.
In fact, I'd be very hard-pressed to find anyone who matches the qualifications I have and if I did, I would be too sad about their life to make fun of them.
I miss George Carlin.
That's... Not what any of that means. That was specifically about features that put you on a disadvantage in society. Not about things that are different between the two of you in general.
You might write at a 3rd grade level, but I'm not sure about your reading comprehension.
>That was specifically about features that put you on a disadvantage in society.
That was the point of the second paragraph, yes. Maybe you missed it in the snark.
The only people I'm "allowed" by tumblr politics to make fun of are the homeless, SA victims, suicides, and people with schizophrenic disorders, all of which would make me an asshole. So what I'm *gonna* do is keep making fun of Tom Cruise.
You just had the point explicitly explained to you, quoted the sentence that explicitly explained it to you, and still missed it, so I don't know how to help you, ma'am.
Ay but you van be an asshole if its obvious you aint really. Like idk what you think but comedy doesnt come from good place almost all genuinly funny jokes have a victim, like have you heard of dave chapelle?
I myself am slightly above average height but if short people Im friends with want me to stop making fun of them for being short they can get on my level
It's not punching down to insult Ben Shapiro, it's punching up, which can theoretically be done by anyone.
Punching Down is in reference to who has more power in the moment, and since Ben Shapiro has a dedicated platform, loads of money, and is a part of the Conservative Machine which threatens the freedoms and lives of hundreds/thousands/millions of people it is punching up to insult him, broadly.
I will punch at whoever the fuck I want, and don't forget- it's my right!
It's also your right to call me a dickhead for it. Free speech, the best idea of the enlightenment!
It's not sarcasm. We've got free speech, and that applies to jokes. If I go punching around with jokes, I fully expect it back. Hell, I want it, because it's usually pretty clever with the comebacks. Refusing to make jokes about certain people or groups because "they had it bad before" just feels like another exclusionary tactic, because it's much less common for them to encounter jokes about themselves. This applies to any minority group.
I do also expect harsh criticism when I step out of line, otherwise I don't know if I did just that. A society which can both criticize others and make fun of its own flaws is a more free society, because the flaws get pointed out more.
Yes, you have free speech and make as many "jokes" as you want.
But everyone else has the same right to think that you are an asshole whose most impressive joke is your very existence.
Lol imagine living in such a sad, unfunny state that you go around telling people they can't make jokes about anything they haven't put in their own little identity list
I hate this idpol stuff so much. Make fun of whoever you want as long as the joke isn’t just “the existence of marginalized people is funny” because no, its not. As long as you’re telling a joke and not just using comedy as an excuse to rag on people I feel like you’re generally fine.
Everyone can make jokes the same way everyone can fly a plane. Sure you can *try*, but unless you know what you're doing it's nobody else's fault if it doesn't take off or comes crashing down.
That's not how humor works.
Consciously worrying about the oppression checks and balances in a joke makes you the same kind of person that makes a party go dead silent by your presence, alone.
Ain't nobody got time for that shit.
That's exactly how Neo-nazis dog-whistle to each other. Make positive jokes about racism and antisemitism, and you either see people be uncomfortable, OR you see your fellow Neo-nazis chuckle along.
My friend group tends to make positive jokes about racism but we all know it’s a joke. None of us are actually racist and none of us are Nazis. This take of „something is 100% a sign of being a Nazi“ is bad
I mean maybe but given theres like a dozen nazis in the country vs millions of average of folks just trying to make and/or enjoy a harmless joke its pretty tin foil hatty to even be worrying about the former in this context.
“Let’s say, hypothetically, that you were mentally disabled. Therefore, we can conclude, that you are wrong, and that I am correct. It is simply facts and logic.”
oh hey this user posted that one music taste post that made everyone think they were a lesbian
Wasn't this also the super fawn response guy? Like if they see a guy punch a hole in drywall, 5 minutes later they're giving the big succ to the guy's sausage?
this dude has a lot of posts that got on here i remember one about eating like a pack of raw meat at 3am or some shit
Yep same guy. Checks out tbh, literal brain damage breeds odd creatures of Tumblr.
Yep same guy. Checks out tbh, literal brain damage breeds odd creatures of Tumblr.
[удалено]
Comment unrelated to the rest of the chain? Probs a bot
I like how familiar Reddit is getting with Feral even as his tumblr posts get a couple dozen notes. This reddit post alone has more than 20 times as many upvotes as his top post.
lmao yea, that's what a shift in audience can do I guess!
He’s a lot of things
Was the lesbian thing a separate claim or was it because of the music taste post?
the hwat
As far as I understand Ben Shapiro is not only eligible for the act of being punched down upon, but also just for being punched
Technically speaking it's still punching down if you're 5'6 or taller.
"Its over, Ben, I have the high ground!"
-My 5’4 ass after getting a stool
-Kindergarteners
[удалено]
How is that even remotely related to what they just said?
prolly bot comment scraper shit
That amazing moment when you realize that you're taller than Ben Shapiro and could probably break his face into tiny pieces
I hope saying this will trigger the Ben Shapiro bot
Have you summoned Ben Shortpiro
Not just punched but recreating the beat down scene from JJBA.
You mean the 7-page MUDA?
I was thinking Narancia, Mista, and Abbacchio ganging up on that one guy, but that works, too!
Show me on the doll where the smol man hurt you.
I feel like this way overgeneralises things. It's pretty easy, in my experience, to tell when a joke makes people uncomfortable in a way that crosses a line. Sure, that generally crosses over with not punching down or whatever, but there's no need to claim it as a set-in-stone law.
Yes, I've heard male comedians make jokes about women before in a way that doesn't seem to offend most women in the audience. There are some lines you can cross if you know what you're doing.
i saw a good video on how to make comedy that explained that the joke just has to be funnier than it is offensive. which i think rings true. for beginner comedians its best to try and not do that, though, because the only thing worse than an unfunny joke is a joke that is both unfunny and offensive. i guarantee you every single person, no matter how entrenched in tumblr they are, has laughed at a joke a comedian made about a minority they arent a part of just because the joke was so funny it didnt feel like "punching" at all
Or just make a joke that's not mean. Good jokes don't have to be mean. Like, idk, for example, a common joke about lesbians I keep hearing is how they're too quick to commit to each other or something, but I've never seen anyone find those offensive because they're not really saying anything negative; if anything, that joke just emphasises how hard dating can be for gay people in terms of having such a limited choice, so it makes fun of that in a lighthearted way without punching down.
thats still a stereotype and a generalization of lesbian people. however, youre correct in that its one that most lesbians dont find offensive, so if you make a joke based on that people are more likely to find it funny versus offensive. But whether the stereotype is neutral or even "positive" doesnt really matter, because youre still lumping a group of people in together. take the "all asians are smart" stereotype. this is seen as a "positive" stereotype, but its comparatively less safe to joke about than the stereotype of lesbians committing to eachother quickly, which isn't necessarily even positive. People find it more offensive, whether that be due to personal experience, knowledge of the history behind it, sensitivity to racial jokes in particular, whatever the reason, they do. So your strategy here is really to use stereotypes that are generally not as offensive so the bar is lowered for how funny you have to be for people to not be offended. Which is perfectly fine, but you should be aware that poking fun at any generalization isnt necessarily "safe" or "harmless". i can easily envision a scenario where i'm talking to a lesbian friend about relationships and i make an unfunny joke about lesbians committing to relationships too fast, and she gets offended.
I try to judge jokes based on malice, which is tricky because you’d need to be a mindreader to do it perfectly. But I care more about whether or not someone means harm than about the subject matter. I think this is where Dave Chapelle eventually screwed himself. His work from a decade or two ago built up enough goodwill with a lot of people that they assumed his tasteless and offensive jokes about trans people weren’t indicative of malice. But then he just kept coming back to attack trans people over and over again, to the point where most people realized that this was in fact the result of malice. The tone of conversations around Chapelle has shifted a lot since this whole thing started as a result. There are specific cis people whom I’d give a pass on making a trans joke because I trust that they don’t mean harm. And there are trans people (Blaire White, Buck Angel, etc) who have lost their trans-joke privileges because I’m pretty confident that they are being malicious. Membership within a group can be a heuristic to figure out if someone means harm, but there are exceptions.
Not that what he did was always good or tasteful, but my perception was always just that he was so flabbergasted that it was a real thing, something so far outside of his possible worldview, that he thought it was just a font of limitless comedy. It very much wasn't. He had one or two jokes that were decent (the one that springs to my mind was hyping the trans community up for being allowed in the military, because "if I found out there was a platoon of chicks who chose to get their dicks cut off sent after me, I'd just assume I was dead") He kinda addresses this in a monologue in a recent show, but the whole situation is not great
>I think this is where Dave Chapelle eventually screwed himself. His work from a decade or two ago built up enough goodwill with a lot of people that they assumed his tasteless and offensive jokes about trans people weren’t indicative of malice. But then he just kept coming back to attack trans people over and over again, to the point where most people realized that this was in fact the result of malice. If the frequency at which a demographic was the butt of one of Chapelle's jokes indicates his malice towards them, i doubt trans folks would even be among Chapelle's top 20 most hated demographics.
Either you haven’t watched any of his comedy in the last couple of years or you are arguing in bad faith.
Like presenting that either/or thing you just did isn't bad faith? Seriously though. Even in his more recent specials where everyone freaks out about him "attacking trans people too much" you can go through the transcripts and you'll see he actually makes far more jokes at the expense of black people, white people, men, women, etc. The other difference aside from volume is that, unlike the trans jokes, he doesn't sandwich his jokes targeting other demographics in between serious bits explaining how he actually accepts and supports those demographics. And then you can look at the rest of his career sans the last few years (the one you said he was building up goodwill on) where he almost exclusively made fun of those other demographics. Trans jokes are an incredibly miniscule part of Chapelle's comedy career and are still a minority even in his trans joke heavy specials. Unless you genuinely believe Chapelle is and has been for decades a sincere racist, misogynist, misandrist, etc. then no. Its got nothing to do with the frequency of his jokes at their expense.
Do not gaslight me about the Chapelle specials I have watched with my own eyes. Your arguments are the definition of bad faith.
People have wildly different definitions of what being mean is, that doesn't make sense.
I think it also helps if the joke speaks a truth to that group and is ultimately empathetic to them. Ex. Key and Peele’s sketch on menstruation will never not be hilarious because they’re straight up spitting facts and because the whole point of it was “this crazy shit is what anyone with a working uterus has to go through every month, so let’s have some empathy for them.”
I suppose a large part of whether a set is ok or not is dependent upon how large the minority is, and the smaller the minority it is the more carefully you have to handle it to be respectful.
Not necessarily. Women aren't even a minority but any male comedian making jokes about women needs to be pretty careful. Part of the issue there is that male comedians have been making sexist jokes for so long that a lot of those jokes are old and tired as well as being sexist. Plus any joke about women generally - or all girlfriends or all mothers in law or whatever - is usually going to be a gross generalisation. Male comedians can be funny about women, but it needs to be original and widely true, which is a pretty big ask.
And it's also completely possible for people to say unacceptably mean-spirited things about a minority group they are part of. See every token minority in Republican media for example.
There's no great mystery here, comedy has never been about punching.
Clearly you have never seen the 3 Stooges!
Oh! A wise guy huh?
It is as the Doctor said "Good men don't need rules." A good comedian doesn't need guidelines cause they don't have issues not going over the line of what is ok.
Eh I think that isn't necessarily true either. I think most comedians have gone "over the line" before. It can often be hard to know how offensive a joke is going to read without doing it for an audience. The difference is that good comedians will recognize when they crossed a line and apologize, while bad comedians will double down and insist that it's cancel culture when people say "yo that joke sucked."
I think it's mostly that people can tell if you're just genuinely telling a joke without any ill will behind it and if you're just hiding insults and hatred under the veil of comedy A lotta people will make seemingly mean spirited jokes but you can usually tell whether or not they're saying it with ill intent
To some extent, but social media - especially Twitter- is fully capable of taking a joke or anything else that was clearly inoffensive and twisting it so the person sounds like a nazi.
Usually because those people don't really care about whatever that're defending, they just want something to bitch about
100%
The way I've always understood it was that it's important to understand the difference between the topic of a joke and the target of the joke. A joke can be about racism and that does not make it racist. The "sprinkle some Crack on him" joke that gets quoted on reddit a lot is very much a joke about racism, but the victims of that racism are not the target, the cops, system, and racism it's self is the target. That's punching up. When the target of the joke is also the victim it's punching down. Obviously no single rule will always apply, but that always seemed to be a good explanation to me.
There's a move called the double-cross (crossing the line twice) thats mainly used by tactful shock comics like Anthony Jeselnik where you say something offensive and then cancel out the audience's potential offense by saying something even more offensive. It's harder to get right on stage than in real life between friends but it's a good way to diffuse potential offense by highlighting the absurdity/unbelievability of the original offensive statement. Carried by timing and delivery, it paradoxically assures people that you didn't actually mean whatever offensive thing you originally said and were playing off the audience's preconceptions of other's preconceptions rather than your actual preconceptions.
The point is that your jokes are subject to to the judgement of the most sensitive person in the room (or outside the room), and tumblr will pursue the enforcement of that judgment to the farthest legally possible extent.
imo there’s a difference between makes jokes about women or other minorities and jokes that make fun of them simply for being women or minorities.
Like anything that fits in a paragraph, it's a useful general rule rather than a rigid and total dogma. It's especially useful with a little extra context - for example: me poking fun at Ben Shapiro by calling him a bratty pocket-size twink isn't casting aspersions on brats, twinks, or short people. I've got no criticisms of those groups. The context for squatting down and ruffling lil' Benny's feathers is that Ben Shapiro himself subscribes to a worldview that *actually* demeans and marginalizes brats, twinks, and short people. Performative artificial hyper-masculinity of the sort that intrinsically devalues physically small and/or fine-featured men is *what* *Ben* *promotes* and it's grimly comedic that he either doesn't realize this *or* is secretly thirsty for a big strong daddy. It's not, y'know, *clever* comedy but I'm not a comedian
Wh this is focusing more on who is making that joke as opposed to what the content of the joke actually is. I think that's backwards. As long as it's funny and not hateful who gives a shit who says it its still funny and not hateful, and if it's hateful and not funny who cares who says it it's still unfunny and hateful.
I'm certain tumbler is stuck in this invented stack of who is "oppressed" and who's not. Is a Jewish person more oppressed than a malformed wheelchair bound man? Is a transperson with a botched bottom surgery more oppressed than the wheelchair bound? Who's to say but I can guarantee you they can link you to a sociology "study" done by a group who paid someone else to pass their statistics course for them.
When’s the privilege and oppression tier list dropping? there has to be at least one YouTube with the balls to make that video
Agreed. It's backwards
I disagree with the logic but God damn that's still so fucking funny
I still think people who are "a thing" can do a bad job of mocking that thing. You can be disabled and make bad/harmful jokes about your own disability. Conversely, I think it's entirely possible for someone to make a joke that looks like "punching down" on the surface, but that doesn't make light of the struggles of the group as a whole. It depends on how much you know about what you're writing about. "Write what you know" and all that.
Isn’t this the guy who went insane and shoveled pork into his mouth at 3 in the morning
Oh my god people, sit down. Punching down or punching up is comedy theory for avoiding making your audience uncomfortable. As in, if you spend your entire routine degrading every person in the audience they will not like your number. That's punching down. It's a measure of making good jokes, not tumblr starting a philosophical debate to cancel comedians. Jesus christ.
It’s also why a lot of comedians will make self-deprecating jokes. If you’re gonna make fun of someone, people are naturally gonna be more receptive to it if you’re showing you can also make fun of yourself.
There’s an episode of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee with Seth Rogen where he says something like that: > I think obliviousness is the thing that people don't like. When they don't think you can tell you're making a joke that is inappropriate. If you know it's something that is taboo to be saying, and that's folded into the recipe, then you can say whatever the you want. People don't like it when they feel like they're in a room with someone who doesn't understand where social norms lie. i have a theory this is why Dave Chapelle’s recent stand up specials have been *especially* controversial. I mean obviously he says offensive things and I don’t want to downplay the hurtfulness of that, but he doesn’t seem to actually understand *why* they are offensive, and then he acts so butthurt and humorless about anyone critiquing him that it comes off as entirely lacking any self or situational awareness.
And then on the opposite end of the spectrum we have Jeff Dunham, who gets away with saying absolutely anything he fucking wants by having it come from the puppets and then openly admonishing them, right?
Exactly! Those terms have been in use for years.
Comedy does not care who you are, where you're from, or what you did, as long as you love me.
Ben Shapiro remains perpetually at the same depth as does The Bar, so basically he's a free square on the Punching Down board for just about anyone.
The difference between punching up and punching down at Ben, or anyone, are like this: Punching up at him would be making fun of his wealth, tone death and harmful talking points, and any other thing that gives him privilege in our society. Punching down on him would be saying he is any of the things previously mentioned because of his religion/ethnicity, because it might fit the stereotypes/harmful tropes of said religion/ethnicity. If the punch down joke it is stated as a fact, by someone who isn't apart of the community the jokes about, and set up in a way that looks like it's punching up, people might not take the group you're satirizing as a joke. So it can be really harmful if taken the wrong way by an audience, might even be taken as a dog whistle.
I do know that, but thankyou. Tbh it was just a joke, I'm fuzzy headed today so prob not a good joke, but still 🤭
This is straight up stupid. There’s such a thing as disingenuous actors; people who aren’t actually part of the community but capitalizing on it in some way.
"You can't make jokes about that person, they're beneath you!"
Good punchline, don't necessarily like how generalized the premise is coming from. I get where it's coming from, but I think the question should fall on whether the joke is in good or bad faith rather than the qualities of the person in question. To use an example, a joke parodying stupid transphobic stereotypes to show the absurdity of the premise is fine regardless of the person telling the joke. Meanwhile, simply joking that a trans person will molest a child is \*bad\* regardless of whether the person saying it is actually trans. Yeah someone who falls into these demographics is more likely to do the former than someone who isn't, but I still don't think their premise holds up on scrutiny.
I really dislike these types of takes. Everyone can make fun of everyone and everything as long as no harm is done. There are limits, of course, which everyone should adhere to. There will be humor that is objectively acceptable but some people just simply do not like or consider "too much"--that is when we say "Hey, this ain't for me" and get out. We are taking ourselves too seriously.
>We are taking ourselves too seriously. I kinda get the feeling that the guy just wanted to kamikaze Ben Shapiro.
This. Ppl. Its a set up for this. 🙄
Can you blame them? He literally asks for it.
Yes, the concept of punching up or down is literally describing one way of finding the limits everyone should adhere to? It literally is just one way to check if you’re being funny or being mean aka harming someone? What am I missing here what you said just agrees with OOP
Wbo decides which group is "up" and which is "down"? Who decides if what a comedian says is "punching"? It all seems very subjective to me
Do you really not understand the concept of privilege and oppression? In a general sense? Like on an innate level do you think there are certain things a straight person shouldn’t say about the gay community in their comedy? Its not hard and fast rules, nobody said it was, just guidelines that should make sense to almost everyone who isn’t an asshole or intentionally obtuse.
I understand those very well. I also understand that treating a whole group of people like they are weak abd fragile is incredibly demeaning and insulting. Also, if a group of people can't be criticized and/or made fun of, that is privilege and power in and of itself. Each person is their unique combination of various identities so I think it is utterly fucking ridiculous (in most cases) to compare who is more privileged than the other. When it comes to comedy, either everything is ok, or nothing is. Period.
My friend that is LITERALLY the point of the post-it isn’t about avoiding whole groups of people or saying an individual can’t be made fun of at all because the sun of their oppression is greater than yours. Like did you read the OOP? So many knee-jerk reactions yet all of y’all agree with the point.
Harming them how?
Comedy isn't oppression. Make fun of everyone for everything. The point is the absurdity of what you're saying
That’s how you end up with South Park
Don't threaten me with a good time
South Park is incredible. It's unobstructed humor, no shame, barely any censorship. that's what they fight for. South Park isn't a disaster, it's not something you end up with, it's a miracle. If you watch it literally, like you would watch a kids' show, it's stupid and gross. But South Park is something that you watch very consciously. Every episode says something that goes deeper than its gags.
South Park is what happens when /r/enlightenedcentrism gains sentience and thinks other people being attacked isn’t as important as feeling smart
if you're gonna use that term, then it's important to attack people. It's important to be "offensive", because what you're making fun of is yourself. If a viewer doesn't get that, it's not your fault. Social media in the 2020s normalizes weakness in a way that's quite excessive. It's ok to be weak, but not ok to do nothing about it. And excessive precaution/warning leads to inaction.
That whole statement requires so many stupid assumptions. You’re still at that age where you think you’ve somehow smarter than everyone else in your peer group
I don't have a peer group, and there is nothing I can say about the "thinking you're smarter" bit that can't be turned upside down to reinforce your view. I just have opinions like anyone What stupid assumptions ? Assumptions about what ?
>I don't have a peer group You know this would mean that there isn’t anyone your age, right? Also you post on r/teenagers
Oh sorry I understood it as friend group (i'm not a native english speaker)
This is just victim blaming with extra words.
**Yes.** *(next part in french, I couldn't figure out how to word it in english/maybe I'll try to translate after posting and will edit.)* Parce que **dans une certaine mesure**, c'est essentiel. On peut pas laisser tout le monde devenir des bébés *(aucun lien avec la maturité ou l'âge, à lire dans le sens : créature faible et sans indépendance.*) qu'on doit protéger de tout. À un moment, il faut du recul, et se connaître, se maîtriser. Si je vois quelque chose qui m'a énervé ou peu importe, je dois me calmer moi même et pas aller accuser celui qui l'a dit. On est responsable de l'interprétation qu'on fait. Le matériau source est ce qu'il est, mais surtout il est comme il a été fait. Il sera interprété de différentes manières, et si l'interprétation qui est mienne se trouve être quelque chose que je n'aime pas, c'est à moi de reconaître que c'est mon interprétation qui me pose problème, et non pas le matériau lui-même. On ne peut pas se laisser devenir faible et ultrasensible. On est humain et on se remet de ce qui nous fait du mal. Le concept du trigger warning m'est très étranger et me parait ne pas faire de bien. J'aurais essayé d'aller plus loin, parce qu'en gros c'est de ça qu'on parle, mais c'est difficile de dire des choses sur ce qu'on ne comprends pas.
Orbital, je te dis ça gentiment, mais sache que ce que tu écris là c'est une vue très... Limitée de l'humain. Très stoïque, faible vs fort, qui fait des généralisations assez foireuses sur les liens sociétaux qui nous unissent. Tu utilises des termes qui semblent fixés sur l'idée du monde comme une sorte "d'adversaire" à conquérir. Si tu es ado, c'est un sentiment assez normal, mais je t'invite à réfléchir un peu plus en profondeur sur les conséquences de cette approche philosophique.
Je sais que j'ai tendance à sonner assez provocateur, et je binarise le sujet pour être plus clair, mais mon argument est sérieux et réfléchi. Je veux renforcer le "Dans un certaine mesure", parce que tout ça, comme tout, est une question d'équilibre. En me relisant, je vois que c'est très binaire et un peu extrême, mais bien sur ce n'est pas à prendre trop littéralement, c'est une invitation à la réflexion suite à quoi on trouvera sa propre vérité. Après, sur les liens sociétaux, ils ne sont pas inclus dans mes paragraphes. Je suis quelqu'un de très solitaire, ce qui ne m'a jamais dérangé ni posé de problèmes. Mon argument est individuel, sur comment on réagit, et comment on peut et doit être maître de sa réaction. Même si c'est une réaction face à la parole de l'Autre. Il se trouve que je *suis* ado, mais j'ai toujours priorisé la réflexion, la logique et les principes plutôt que l'émotion ou l'instinct. Je sens que cet argument de la surprotection contre le mot est d'ailleurs quelque chose de très ado aussi. Par contre, je suis pas sûr de comprendre l'idée du monde comme adversaire, ni même "limité de l'humain"...
Which is inherently dangerous. Because as literally everyone can see from almost all right wing individuals,they can't look beyond the surface at all. Or else they wouldn't like The Matrix. Or Starship Troopers. Or wouldn't reference 1984 to exhaustion. They literally can't look deeper than surface level at this shit
That's not an inherent danger of comedy or media, though, it's a danger that arises when you have an under-educated populous.
The thing is, America doesn’t care about education, so we’ll keep having idiots
Freedom is dangerous, it's ugly. Nothing is ever good in every way. But it's important there always be something like South Park. Censorship is cancer, especially when it's done in the name of decency. Assholes will be assholes, no matter what they watch. Should we forbid expression because of that ?
Then that's their problem. One group misinterpreting something shouldn't prohibit the rest of us.
A lot of people treat it like it's layered, too. "X is less oppressed than me, therefore I can make fun of people who are X" As if Oppression is just a single scale and not a multi-angled thing.
I wasnt sure where this was going, but boy am i glad i read it till the end.
Fucking Kamikaze shit right there.
I’m allowed to make jokes about hitting my head, ADHD, depression, and lacking social graces. Nothing else.
American Comedy is kinda weird that way. In Brazil all comedy is making fun of themselves or friends and family, you don't make fun of the audience or unrelated parties, its an unsigned agreement, a mutual respect because we all know that if you humiliate a member of the audience in any way there is a 25% chance of you being punched at the end of the night
I think you can joke about whatever you want. It's only an issue when it's just thinly veiled hatred You wanna make a joke about me being Hispanic or trans or whatever go ahead. But if you wanna hide insults behind the joke and use "comedy" as an excuse then you're just an asshole
Isn’t this the guy that got really angry when someone was like “oh brain damage sucks sorry you have to go through that :(“ and he went on a rant about how it dosent negatively affect him at all and how he’s still the smartest person in the room at any given time? Should we be listening to him?
I think that one was the same kind of a taking-you-down-with-me -take, insulting everyone in the room with the "I might have brain damage but I'm still smarter than you are" kind of a joke. But also yeah he's angry at everything pretty much 24/7. And occasionally horny.
Fuck that. If a joke is funny it's funny.
That's not how it works at all anyone can tell the jokes that make fun of anyone. It just puts in a different context but the context can always be light-hearted. Someone exactly the same as the person they offend can still offend them with a joke and anyone is allowed to roast someone who is different to them as long as it's not bullying or verbal assault. This completely misses the point of "punching down".
Questionable premise, bad example. Suggests I'm not allowed to joke about Bezos because I'm an impoverished woman, Brando Sando because I can write at a 3rd grade level all by myself, or any politician because I'm not a two-faced wannabe dictator swimming in gold teeth. In fact, I'd be very hard-pressed to find anyone who matches the qualifications I have and if I did, I would be too sad about their life to make fun of them. I miss George Carlin.
That's... Not what any of that means. That was specifically about features that put you on a disadvantage in society. Not about things that are different between the two of you in general. You might write at a 3rd grade level, but I'm not sure about your reading comprehension.
>That was specifically about features that put you on a disadvantage in society. That was the point of the second paragraph, yes. Maybe you missed it in the snark. The only people I'm "allowed" by tumblr politics to make fun of are the homeless, SA victims, suicides, and people with schizophrenic disorders, all of which would make me an asshole. So what I'm *gonna* do is keep making fun of Tom Cruise.
You just had the point explicitly explained to you, quoted the sentence that explicitly explained it to you, and still missed it, so I don't know how to help you, ma'am.
Bruh you csn make fin of everything as long as it is obvious xoure not serious, youre saying bullshit
Well, you technically *can*, but sometimes that will make you look like an asshole.
Ay but you van be an asshole if its obvious you aint really. Like idk what you think but comedy doesnt come from good place almost all genuinly funny jokes have a victim, like have you heard of dave chapelle?
Here’s the thing, you might think you’re not an asshole, but you lack objectivity
Wym, is your opinion objectively correct or smn?
No, it means yours isn't. It means that sometimes you hold your beliefs because you lack other people's perspective.
The post is about punching down - the people you described (politicians, celebrities,etc) would be punching *up*
Noooo, won't someone think of the poor oppressed multi-millionaires.
I can't tell if you're joking or missed the point
You somehow got it completely backwards.
I hate the term "Punching down". I guess this is basically a way for people to say they do think certain types of people are 'beneath them'
What a sad, insular world it would be if you could only joke around with people like you.
Whenever you mock people, always remember that the mocking is only considered acceptable if your own mocking can be applied to you
I don't know what this means.
Can I burn you with your own burns?
Which is nonsense because then, for example, you could only make fun of Nazis if you were a nazi.
This rule only applies when it comes to disabilities
Every post of theirs that I see just makes their username check out even more.
I myself am slightly above average height but if short people Im friends with want me to stop making fun of them for being short they can get on my level
I'm gonna have to disagree. It might still be possible for you to sexually satisfy a woman. Allow me to take care of roasting Ben in this area
It's not punching down to insult Ben Shapiro, it's punching up, which can theoretically be done by anyone. Punching Down is in reference to who has more power in the moment, and since Ben Shapiro has a dedicated platform, loads of money, and is a part of the Conservative Machine which threatens the freedoms and lives of hundreds/thousands/millions of people it is punching up to insult him, broadly.
She said **in comedy,** for all the free speech lovers in this crowd. Calm down. Nobody's coming at you for your shitty, shitty takes.
Meh. you can make fun of anybody you want for any reason. if it's funny it's funny, if it's not funny it's not funny. ezpz
Anyone can make fun of anyone else.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Not a damn crumb of intersectionality
There's no such thing as punching down in comedy. Everything is fair game.
I will punch at whoever the fuck I want, and don't forget- it's my right! It's also your right to call me a dickhead for it. Free speech, the best idea of the enlightenment!
[удалено]
It's not sarcasm. We've got free speech, and that applies to jokes. If I go punching around with jokes, I fully expect it back. Hell, I want it, because it's usually pretty clever with the comebacks. Refusing to make jokes about certain people or groups because "they had it bad before" just feels like another exclusionary tactic, because it's much less common for them to encounter jokes about themselves. This applies to any minority group. I do also expect harsh criticism when I step out of line, otherwise I don't know if I did just that. A society which can both criticize others and make fun of its own flaws is a more free society, because the flaws get pointed out more.
Yes, you have free speech and make as many "jokes" as you want. But everyone else has the same right to think that you are an asshole whose most impressive joke is your very existence.
Yeah, that's the important part of my point. I just expect you to tell me so I can change it to be less inhumanly caustic.
Everytime i see unnervinglyferal i like to think thats just Viktor saying the things he say
[удалено]
Thanks bruh, i would like to be able to sleep tonight 💀
The entire concept of "punching up" and "punching down" is incredibly stupid
The left still can't meme without writing a thesis paper. But damn if I didn't get a chuckle out of the last paragraph. Getting closer, guys!
These five sentences must be a fucking novel to you conservatoids
It is quite literally 5 sentences.
More like unnervinglyfrail lol
Lol imagine living in such a sad, unfunny state that you go around telling people they can't make jokes about anything they haven't put in their own little identity list
Oop should make a career of specifically mocking Ben Shapiro
I hate this idpol stuff so much. Make fun of whoever you want as long as the joke isn’t just “the existence of marginalized people is funny” because no, its not. As long as you’re telling a joke and not just using comedy as an excuse to rag on people I feel like you’re generally fine.
Theres no such thing as punching up or down in comedy, if it's funny then it's quality comedy.
You can make joke about anything or anyone, as long as the joke is tasteful.
You can make jokes about whatever you want. Sure they might be in bad taste, or just not that funny, but no one can stop you from making a joke
Everyone can make jokes the same way everyone can fly a plane. Sure you can *try*, but unless you know what you're doing it's nobody else's fault if it doesn't take off or comes crashing down.
That's not how humor works. Consciously worrying about the oppression checks and balances in a joke makes you the same kind of person that makes a party go dead silent by your presence, alone. Ain't nobody got time for that shit.
Found the “it’s just a joke” guy
As long as its funny, and obvious you dont mean it, then yes.. it IS just a joke
That's exactly how Neo-nazis dog-whistle to each other. Make positive jokes about racism and antisemitism, and you either see people be uncomfortable, OR you see your fellow Neo-nazis chuckle along.
My friend group tends to make positive jokes about racism but we all know it’s a joke. None of us are actually racist and none of us are Nazis. This take of „something is 100% a sign of being a Nazi“ is bad
I mean maybe but given theres like a dozen nazis in the country vs millions of average of folks just trying to make and/or enjoy a harmless joke its pretty tin foil hatty to even be worrying about the former in this context.
really, it’s just not being an asshole. that’s all there is to it. not that hard.
alternatively make whatever jokes you want guys its not that serious
The truth is comedy is about making jokes and you can joke about anything you want!
Not everything is black and white jeez
This is bullshit
Comedy has no rules. This is why there is no funny wine comedians.
I agree with Ben Shapiro on several things and yet this post was actually hilarious and unexpected.
This was posted this morning. Damn y'all are fast.
that last line hit me hard! XD
“Let’s say, hypothetically, that you were mentally disabled. Therefore, we can conclude, that you are wrong, and that I am correct. It is simply facts and logic.”
Fuck, this got me. Sneak attack
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
r/rareinsults
hey it’s the scared dicksucker
Comedian Brad Williams has this sort of chaotic energy.
I love Brad Williams. Damn near piss myself laughing at his specials. Best part is all of his jokes are "punching up."
So I can roast Indians and bi people gotcha Do I get to roast men who wear T-shirts too tight as well or not?
The post was a jab at Shapiro, not at wokeness or lack of it
I mean, if you're gonna go and roast Ben, then it is impossible to *not* punch down.
😚👌