Jerry Sadowitz cancelled

bertie

Sporky said:

bertie said:

surely it was onus on the "venue" to undertake some due diligence on who was to be working.

I think that might be a bit backwards. It could be read as "we're putting on an act we know is offensive, so you're not allowed to work that night".

no not really (or not what I meant )     - the due diligence is you put people on who would not offended and make sure anyone that might be - get the opportunity to  "refuse" that shift

Sporky

bertie said:

no not really (or not what I meant )     - the due diligence is you put people on who would not offended and make sure anyone that might be - get the opportunity to  "refuse" that shift

Sorry - it wasn't an attempt to put words in your mouth. My apologies if that's how it came across. 

More a "if you know a performer will offend your staff, who do you put first?" thing. 

bertie

@sporky ;  -  presactly 

venue has a duty of care over its staff ? surely ?  so it knows a "risqué"  act is on that might offend,  its down to them to ensure the staff working that night are "appropriate"  (cant think of a better word) 

Sporky

Ayup - I was just thinking at it the other way - should you put someone on if you know they'll offend some or all if your staff?

Not an easy one to answer. I'm not a fan of censorship, but I don't think free speech means any given venue is obliged to give a platform to a problematic performer (for want of a better term).

Cancelling halfway through doesn't feel like the right solution, though I follow their reasons. Perhaps just the wrong combination of venue and performer. 

LastMantra

tony99 said:

When we know what has been said, plus context; and then furthermore knowing who, (or maybe what) has taken offence, if indeed he has offended someone (or something, like a venue) and then when we know why he/she/they/ or it, has taken offence - maybe we can make a more informed judgement.

But so far, in the words of the late great Sir Patrick Moore: "we just don't know"

I'm all for free speech though (including written) just as I am all for the consequences.

It's tricky, when you think about some of the comedians that have been very popular in the past and now people won't even admit they liked them at all.

I liked Jim Davidson when I was a kid. At the time I didn't understand the concept of racism or anything like that. Of course that was mainstream at the time and he was on all the prime time shows. There was a lot "worse" at the time.

You've got to be careful what you laugh at these days!

It's honestly a reason why I'd never get a tattoo of a musician or anyone famous, just in case he turns out to be a badyin. 

Sassafras

LastMantra said:

tony99 said:

When we know what has been said, plus context; and then furthermore knowing who, (or maybe what) has taken offence, if indeed he has offended someone (or something, like a venue) and then when we know why he/she/they/ or it, has taken offence - maybe we can make a more informed judgement.

But so far, in the words of the late great Sir Patrick Moore: "we just don't know"

I'm all for free speech though (including written) just as I am all for the consequences.

It's tricky, when you think about some of the comedians that have been very popular in the past and now people won't even admit they liked them at all.

I liked Jim Davidson when I was a kid. At the time I didn't understand the concept of racism or anything like that. Of course that was mainstream at the time and he was on all the prime time shows. There was a lot "worse" at the time.

You've got to be careful what you laugh at these days!

It's honestly a reason why I'd never get a tattoo of a musician or anyone famous, just in case he turns out to be a badyin. 

The other and main reason being that they're totally naff!

bertie

Sporky said:

Ayup - I was just thinking at it the other way - should you put someone on if you know they'll offend some or all if your staff?

its a performance venue  - you could argue  that would be the case with every act,   plus considering the fanatical impact of Covid etc..................  I suspect getting a full booking list is top priority.   Especially if its someone that puts bums on seats.
It is a business after all.   

BillDL

Nobody actually knows WHO made the complaint(s).  It could have been ticket paying audience members or members of staff.  Sadly we live in an era where there is a small (but increasing) percentage of the population that will deliberately ignore all warnings or informational signs and go to places or do things for the sole purpose of being offended so that they can then express their outrage on social media.  It happens, and I would not discount that possibility in this instance.

Sassafras

BillDL said:

Nobody actually knows WHO made the complaint(s).  It could have been ticket paying audience members or members of staff.  Sadly we live in an era where there is a small (but increasing) percentage of the population that will deliberately ignore all warnings or informational signs and go to places or do things for the sole purpose of being offended so that they can then express their outrage on social media.  It happens, and I would not discount that possibility in this instance.

Known as 'virtue signalling' by 'social justice warriors'.
There are far more serious issues to fight for.

Paul_C

Sassafras said:

BillDL said:

Nobody actually knows WHO made the complaint(s).  It could have been ticket paying audience members or members of staff.  Sadly we live in an era where there is a small (but increasing) percentage of the population that will deliberately ignore all warnings or informational signs and go to places or do things for the sole purpose of being offended so that they can then express their outrage on social media.  It happens, and I would not discount that possibility in this instance.

Known as 'virtue signalling' by 'social justice warriors'.
There are far more serious issues to fight for.

Like what ?

For who ?

If you're on the end of repeated abuse and would rather the world was a nicer place then it might be very important indeed.

Sporky

Sassafras said:

Known as 'virtue signalling' by 'social justice warriors'.

Both phrases seem predominantly to be used by people who think virtue is bad, and that society should be unjust. 

Offset

Sporky said:

Sassafras said:

Known as 'virtue signalling' by 'social justice warriors'.

Both phrases seem predominantly to be used by people who think virtue is bad, and that society should be unjust. 

Sometimes yes, I agree.  But like it or not, there are those who are very quick to (loudly) point out perceived social injustices where none exist merely to bolster their own impeccable credentials.

They doth protest too much, methinks.

mart

BillDL said:

Nobody actually knows WHO made the complaint(s).  It could have been ticket paying audience members or members of staff.  ...

Presumably the venue know who complained. Some news reports explicitly say that both audience members and staff complained. But looking at the statements from the venue, they just refer to "those in the building". 

That looks to me like a deliberate choice of words to avoid identifying who made the complaints, to protect the complainants. The venue would have a duty to protect its staff, but not it's (anonymous) customers, so that suggests to me that at least some complaints came from staff, maybe even all of them.

Just some more pointless speculation.

Snags

Offset said:

Sporky said:

Sassafras said:

Known as 'virtue signalling' by 'social justice warriors'.

Both phrases seem predominantly to be used by people who think virtue is bad, and that society should be unjust. 

Sometimes yes, I agree.  But like it or not, there are those who are very quick to (loudly) point out perceived social injustices where none exist merely to bolster their own impeccable credentials.

They doth protest too much, methinks.

Kind of like on a forum where when there's any detail-free post that vaguely hints at the possibility this just might, in a vanishingly contrived circumstance, be the case, we end up with multiple pages of people rubbing their thighs with glee that they can decry that it's "political woke justice madness gone warrior these days"?

Two sides to the same coin sometimes. Maybe it's the things I choose to pay attention to, but I see a heck of a lot more ranting about all the stuff we apparently can't do (but which is done repeatedly) than people kicking off about the actual doing of it.

Or just wilful failure to grasp what was actually said (the Guthrie thread in /guitar being a prime example).

TeleMaster

Simonh said:

There is a difference between racial hatred and comedy.

Well, yea. If one person is doing comedy about clowns in a comedy club and someone else is being a racist in the street, then there's a difference. 

But if it is a racist, doing racist comedy, for the purpose of being racist then there's no difference, right? 

Offset

Snags said:

Kind of like on a forum where when there's any detail-free post that vaguely hints at the possibility this just might, in a vanishingly contrived circumstance, be the case, we end up with multiple pages of people rubbing their thighs with glee that they can decry that it's "political woke justice madness gone warrior these days"?

To a degree yes.  But it's a two-way street and for every example of the above, you'll get someone espousing the diametrically opposed view that we should make allowances for every batshit soapbox orator, no matter how ludicrous their claims nor how loudly they shout them.  Leading inevitably to them clamouring for the 'cancellation' of those who have the temerity to disagree with them.

Simonh

TeleMaster said:

Simonh said:

There is a difference between racial hatred and comedy.

Well, yea. If one person is doing comedy about clowns and someone else is being a racist in the street, then there's a difference...

But what if it is a racist, doing racist comedy, for the purpose of being racist? Then there's no difference, right? 

Yes because if someone is doing racist comedy for the purpose of being racist then that is just racist.

If you are doing comedy that includes racist terms to make people rethink racism then that is comedy.

Offset

Simonh said:

TeleMaster said:

Simonh said:

There is a difference between racial hatred and comedy.

Well, yea. If one person is doing comedy about clowns and someone else is being a racist in the street, then there's a difference...

But what if it is a racist, doing racist comedy, for the purpose of being racist? Then there's no difference, right? 

Yes because if someone is doing racist comedy for the purpose of being racist then that is just racist.

If you are doing comedy that includes racist terms to make people rethink racism then that is comedy.

You need look no further than Till Death Us Do Part.

Sassafras

Sporky said:

Sassafras said:

Known as 'virtue signalling' by 'social justice warriors'.

Both phrases seem predominantly to be used by people who think virtue is bad, and that society should be unjust. 

I don't think virtue is bad or that society should be unjust but I think banging on about it for your own glorification is bad and it trivialises real injustice.

Sporky

Sassafras said:

I don't think virtue is bad or that society should be unjust but I think banging on about it for your own glorification is bad and it trivialises real injustice.

How can you tell why people do what they do?

Unless you either conduct detailed interviews or are psychic all you can know is what you think they're doing it for.