Jimmy Carr

[mccity]

Well that's a stupid hypothetical, because you're asking me to imagine that a pre-written stand up show that has been honed over months would have the same words and delivery as an off-the-cuff rant on a podcast. Alan Davies is a good enough comedian to be able to, for example, put some actual jokes in the rant if he was writing it.

But let's imagine that it does appear word-for-word with identical delivery in a stand up show, then it would likely be surrounded by the sort of context that would make it clear that we're supposed to be laughing at this bitter Arsenal fan as a tragic figure, not agreeing with him.

Fair enough. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here because I respect your opinion enough to be ok with it.

I think this forum would be absolutely livid if he went on stage and did that rant in any context.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Being offensive for the sole purpose of being offensive would not be funny to most people and would only be acceptable to individuals who sympathised with Nilsen and Sutcliffe rather than their victims and their families.

I wasn't mate. I was being grossly offensive to challenge the point you were making. Some jokes need to be offensive to be funny. See article below.

But there is also a context, and a time and a place. It wouldn't be appropriate to use the joke about Children's toys in the article below when talking to bereaved families.

Every Joke Falls in One of 11 Categories, Says Founding Editor of The Onion

The Onion founding editor Scott Dikkers says every joke can be categorized in one of 11 "funny filters."

bigthink.com

 

[malg]

I thought it was funny, and that's all that matters to me. If someone finds it offensive then complain to Netflix and don't watch him again. It's quite easy this stuff. I don't find Lenny Henry, or Lee Evans, or Michael McIntyre funny so I just don't watch any of them.

 

[blueinsa]

Maybe I have interpreted the joke differently to others but I actually thought the purpose of it was calling out prejudice against the traveller community rather than encouraging it.

He explains that but as usual, that important bit of information is left out by those who want to cancel him.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

You're the one who brought up Stewart Lee in character to defend Jimmy Carr ffs you cretin.

You cannot decide to use Stewart Lee quotes only work when you quote and agree with them.

There's nothing wrong with using a joke to make a point. The difference is you referenced a comedy routine and claimed that it was Stewart Lee's real opinion. It might be. But you don't seem to be able to find any reference to Stewart Lee genuinely criticising Jimmy Carr's content outside of this routine. Might as well throw your toys out of the pram and resort to personal insults, eh?

 

[Coatigan]

The problem isn't about context, it's that ending a segment about how funny it is that Romani got slaughtered by saying "see I'm being educational because a lot of people don't know about it" doesn't take away from the fact your audience spent the last minute laughing about how funny it is to say Romani getting slaughtered was a good thing because no one likes gypsies.

Yes and no. I agree, but is the audience laughing at that, or cheering it, particularly that much of his problem? Possibly, if you think he's inciting it.

And while the joke itself is both crap and crass, he has actually played the part of appearing to 'detatch' himself from it, by means of an introduction and the immediate follow-up of his so called explanation.

Might wash not with some, including me, but, there will no doubt be those that will be able to detach it if they want to.



To me the whole thing is like saying 'guys, using the n word is bad' but instead of saying 'the n word' he actually says/uses the n word. And someone laughs, whether because they think he's edgy, or for whatever other reason. So there can be a pretence he hasnt really said it, while milking whatever effect there is in saying it. Still feels crass, is neither funny nor clever, possibly offensive to many, and likely doesnt bother many either. Amplified in Carr's case by the fact he has brought death into it.

 

[domalino]

There's nothing wrong with using a joke to make a point. The difference is you referenced a comedy routine and claimed that it was Stewart Lee's real opinion. It might be. But you don't seem to be able to find any reference to Stewart Lee genuinely criticising Jimmy Carr's content outside of this routine. Might as well throw your toys out of the pram and resort to personal insults, eh?

There’s 2 things here. One is that you seem to think Lee doesn’t have any genuine critique of anything when he’s on stage. If he dedicates a bit to taking down UKIPs immigration policy, he doesn’t leave the stage and actually agree with it. He’s chosen to write material about it to critique it. When he decides to do a bit about very famous comedians thinking they’re being edgy by punching down on people, he is actually criticising that.

Secondly, after you shifted the goalposts and decided for some reason that nothing said on stage could be relied on as real, Iposted a column where he takes apart the entire concept of comedians who think they are fighting Wokeism and saying the things no one can say, which is explicitly what Carr is doing here - he prefaced the joke by saying “this might end my career hahahaha”. I even clipped out the important bit because I knew you wouldn’t read the whole thing.

But Apparently you can’t see it’s a criticism of this Carr routine because it’s not literally mentioning him by name, which is fucking tragic but perhaps I should have expected it.

 

[Coatigan]

He explains that but as usual, that important bit of information is left out by those who want to cancel him.

Is it that important, as a bit of information? I actually asked the same earlier in the thread, doubt many reactions have seen it in full. But if you have, you can still have a take on it, whether that is enoug of a context to give it a different meaning or not. For me, i recognize what he is doing, and I don't for a second think he means it, but it hardly changes it.

What is being a bit lost is the setting too. Bear in mind this joke is coming some way into a show where there is already a build-up of a mood, and an atmosphere where people have eased into a quick laugh mood. Both he and they feel fairly safe and quick to laugh because of that. It probably felt entirely different on the night to that audience in setting, than to me and anyone seeing it cold on youtube in isolation, after reading an article about it.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Fair enough. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here because I respect your opinion enough to be ok with it.

I think this forum would be absolutely livid if he went on stage and did that rant in any context.

Well maybe you're right, but would that be a good measure of whether or not it's acceptable? Let's be honest, plenty of City fans would be willingly offended because it's about their club and it's being said by an outsider.

In my experience, the angry rant genre of comedy is either the Malcolm Tucker great use of language style, or the one where the ranter is the butt of the joke themselves, and is portrayed as a tragic figure that we're supposed to laugh at. Al Murray would be a perfect example. He says xenophobic things every time he goes on stage, but no-one complains because everyone understands the context and it's really obvious he's playing a character.

We seem to live in a world where someone being offended is evidence that something is unacceptable (because that attitude is often taken by companies playing it safe). I don't agree. If you think something is unacceptable, I think you should have to justify it.

 

[Coatigan]

Al Murray would be a perfect example. He says xenophobic things every time he goes on stage, but no-one complains because everyone understands the context and it's really obvious he's playing a character.

I dont think it is just because he is playing a character. It is because the character he has created is ultimately the but of the joke, rather than the jokes he says. Younare laughing at the expense of someone that thinks that way, rather than at the thought itself.

Something Carr did try to caveat to an extent, just not well enough (for many).