Jerry Sadowitz cancelled

Sassafras

Sporky said:

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.

Yes, that's why I'm giving my opinion.

fretmeister

Sassafras 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. 

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.

If it actually improves things, does it matter?

Offset

fretmeister said:

Sassafras 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. 

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.

If it actually improves things, does it matter?

If it improves things, then no.  But that isn't always the outcome, sadly.

TeleMaster

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.

Maybe. You don't get a free pass to use racist terms just because you want people to 'rethink racism', and you can't just use it to hide behind if it's lazy, shit comedy that ends up reinforcing the same ideas instead of making people 'rethink them'.

The Till Death Do Us Part example is a good example. It may have been made to shine a light on the idocy of racists, but actually it was watched by racists, and people would go out and kick the shit out of black, Asian people while they screamed Alf Garnett quotes at them. People with a platform have a responsibility to ensure that they do this stuff correctly, carefully and to not escalate the situation, and in the above example they didnt because of all the racist language that empowered racists. 

Simonh

Nobody said anything about giving anyone a free pass, but by the same token I don't see why a comedian should be held  responsible if scumbags take their art in a way that it was never intended, I would argue that racists scumbags will always be racists scumbags but something like "Till Death do us part" did more good than harm and moved culture on in an overall positive way. if nothing else it asked the question - is this okay?

For a comedian I think it is a difficult and fine line to have to walk and if you are going to do that then you have to be prepared for potential consequences if you get it wrong, but that does not also give a free pass to be cancelled because someone chose to take offence out of context.

TeleMaster

Because incitement is a thing, it is a crime. So if people incite others to act in a certain way, or commit a particular crime because of their influence then that is against the law. It's fairly simple. It may be intentional, it may not be, but it may still be incitement. So you have to think about the consequences of your actions when you say and do things. That's just part of living in a functioning society.

You can't scream 'FIRE' as a joke in a packed theatre to see how fast people can run, as a comment on how fast people are and then when someone gets trampled to death claim they took it 'out of context' like some Love Island contestant who gets caught saying something mad about poor people, or it's just 'comedy'. 

While I understand the intention of Till Death Do Us Part, it was ultimately so poorly done that it empowered the people it was meant to shine a light on. That is by any measure a complete and utter failure. It was crass and particularly lazy in its delivery and I cannot agree that it 'moved culture on' more than it stifled progress because so many people identified with Alf Garnett.

That show is not a good example. I really believe that it proves my point more than it does yours because so many people channeled Alf Garnetts racism and felt he represented them. 

Offset

TeleMaster said:

Because incitement is a thing, it is a crime. So if people incite others to act in a certain way, or commit a particular crime because of their influence then that is against the law. It's fairly simple. It may be intentional, it may not be, but it may still be incitement. So you have to think about the consequences of your actions when you say and do things. That's just part of living in a functioning society.

You can't scream 'FIRE' as a joke in a packed theatre to see how fast people can run, as a comment on how fast people are and then when someone gets trampled to death claim they took it 'out of context' like some Love Island contestant who gets caught saying something mad about poor people, or it's just 'comedy'. 

While I understand the intention of Till Death Do Us Part, it was ultimately so poorly done that it empowered the people it was meant to shine a light on. That is by any measure a complete and utter failure. It was crass and particularly lazy in its delivery and I cannot agree that it 'moved culture on' more than it stifled progress because so many people identified with Alf Garnett.

That show is not a good example. I really believe that it proves my point more than it does yours because so many people channeled Alf Garnetts racism and felt he represented them. 

Good post.  But TDUDP can't be criticised too hard.  It was of its time.  Its intentions were altruistic and Warren Mitchell was both Jewish and a staunch socialist and would have been appalled had his character been used as a justification for racial violence or abuse.  You can't legislate for the fact that a depressingly significant number of any programme's audience will be as thick as pigshit.  I remember when Alex Haley's Roots was first broadcast in the UK; it spawned some extremely unpleasant 'humour' but that didn't mean to say it shouldn't have been made.  It was by and large a very positive and powerful piece.

I remember Rudolph Walker being interviewed by Jonathan Ross on the radio some years back.  He was asked if he regretted appearing in 'Love Thy Neighbour' because of a similar TDUDP reaction to it by some of the more simian sections of our society, and because it made use of (mild) racist language.  "Not at all", replied Walker.  "The black guy always won."

DefaultM

Is he a comedian that says things he doesn't really believe, and the point is it turns out to have a punchline that makes you think? Or is he just an absolute idiot on stage with his knob out saying racial slurs to be 'edgy'?

A pub near me recently had a band play and it quickly became clear that they were neo nazis, so they weren't allowed to finish the set. That seems fair enough to me. Why would a venue want someone on their stage being full on unironically racist?

mart

Simonh said:
... 

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.

I firmly agree with this, and think that intention and context have a big role to play in determining when something is acceptable or not. But then I get stuck on this point:

Sporky said:
...

How can you tell why people do what they do?
...

And I end up just being glad that I don't have to decide these things.

Offset

DefaultM said:

Why would a venue want someone on their stage being full on unironically racist?

They wouldn't. 

Re. the band anecdote, reminds me of the first episode of Phoenix Nights when the band hired by Peter Kay's wheelchair-bound nightclub owner kicked off with the song "Send The Buggers Back".  Ostensibly referring to shoes, it was a metaphor for people.  Very good critique of northern working men's clubs.  Will it survive unmolested... who knows.

DefaultM

Thinking more about my pub example it's probably not great because this guy isn't an unknown that's just turned up and been unexpectedly offensive.
He's a multiple decade established act that always seems to do the same kind of stuff. It's not like it should have taken the venue by surprise is it? They shouldn't have put him on in the first place if it didn't fit with what they want to be showcasing.

Simonh

TeleMaster said:

Because incitement is a thing, it is a crime. So if people incite others to act in a certain way, or commit a particular crime because of their influence then that is against the law. It's fairly simple. It may be intentional, it may not be, but it may still be incitement. So you have to think about the consequences of your actions when you say and do things. That's just part of living in a functioning society.

You can't scream 'FIRE' as a joke in a packed theatre to see how fast people can run, as a comment on how fast people are and then when someone gets trampled to death claim they took it 'out of context' like some Love Island contestant who gets caught saying something mad about poor people, or it's just 'comedy'. 

While I understand the intention of Till Death Do Us Part, it was ultimately so poorly done that it empowered the people it was meant to shine a light on. That is by any measure a complete and utter failure. It was crass and particularly lazy in its delivery and I cannot agree that it 'moved culture on' more than it stifled progress because so many people identified with Alf Garnett.

That show is not a good example. I really believe that it proves my point more than it does yours because so many people channeled Alf Garnetts racism and felt he represented them. 

And i think the fact it is even being discussed now shows that it had a positive impact.

However the point I think we agree on is that you can't just say racist shit, or use racist terms and shrug your shoulders and say "muh comedy" and if you are going to include that sort of material not only do you need to be clever with it to make the non racists point you want to make you also have to accept that there will be an inevitable element of push back for doing it in the first place.

Blaendulais

Lets cancel cancel culture ffs

Offset

Blaendulais said:

Lets cancel cancel culture ffs

Were it that easy.  It's the cultural equivalent of Japanese knotweed.

Sporky

Blaendulais said:

Lets cancel cancel culture ffs

It'd be nice to stop people like John Cleese going on about it when he cancels his own appearances, certainly. 

UnclePsychosis

Snags said:

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).

Its very noticable that all threads about not being able to tell racist/offensive jokes anymore is full of outrage about virtue signalling and censorship being bad, mmkay, but that the thread in P&E on the Cabinet Office banning speakers for criticising government policy is like a ghost town.

There's a lot of "right leaning" people who seem suspiciously interested in free speech when it comes to being offensive to ethnic minorities and transgender people, but go suspiciously quiet when it comes to other forms of censorship. I'm beginning to suspect that free speech isn't what they're interested in protecting... 

Sporky

UnclePsychosis said:

There's a lot of "right leaning" people who seem suspiciously interested in free speech when it comes to being offensive to ethnic minorities and transgender people, but go suspiciously quiet when it comes to other forms of censorship. I'm beginning to suspect that free speech isn't what they're interested in protecting... 

The authoritarian right has always had issues with societal change. All the backlash against a strawman PC bogeyman, the current outrage and name-calling ("snowflakes", "wokies", SJWs) at anyone suggesting we should all be kind to each other, the demonisation of tolerance and inclusivity... They're a fragile and easily triggered bunch. 

euan

How exactly does calling Sunak a derogatory and racist term confront an audiences racism? Either a racist finds it funny because they are a racist, or someone finds it funny because "I'm not a racist but that was said in a funny way" and carries on in their ignorance. Meanwhile the person who rightly takes offense is somehow just not able to get it or just going there to be offended.

A comedian like Stewart Lee is clever enough to confront an audience's prejudices in a way without resulting to offensive stereotypes or language. I've seen him do that very thing, specifically on people's inability to call out casual and open racism when it's in front of them. 

The likes of Sadowitz get away with "playing a racist character" compared to Jim Davidson is purely down to class/elitism. The character they play and for what audience.

Sassafras

I'm fairly sure racists felt more emboldened by Enoch Powell than Alf Garnett.

TeleMaster

Sassafras said:

I'm fairly sure racists felt more emboldened by Enoch Powell than Alf Garnett.

Yea. And Hitler too.That doesn't mean that they didn't also feel emboldened by Alf Garnett too, and other racists all at the same time...