Hence why I'm saying in this case the goal posts have adjusted slightly.
Because what I mean is outside of some patronising special show, such a comedian would be unlikely to exist (unless one meant an aspie comic lots of those).
So there's no real response and the jokes only go in one direction.
Quote: sootyj @ January 31 2012, 2:43 PM GMTLanguage and comedy are 2 hugely powerful mediums. If they weren't then renegade why are you a comedy writer?
Thank you very much, I wish more people would appreciate my comedy writing skills.
Every single comedian makes a joke about some form of mental illness - whether it's something innocuous like OCD to full on autism to psychotic rage. Where do you draw the line?
Wasn't Carr doing an experimental 'what would you laugh at because you're en masse' thing?
And didn't Gervais explicitly say he didn't realise it was offensive in the way it was taken and apologised?
And Boyle was trying to have a go at Jordan and took it further than people were comfortable with?
I would never stick up for discrimination but you can think individuals are unpleasant or unfunny and still find it as sickening that people seem to be getting off on ignoring facts so they can enjoy the sound of themselves shrieking.
(This isn't aimed at you sooty, who is actually concerned about sociological and practical effects, it's aimed at hysterical media only giving voices to those who ignite an unhelpful debate. It kind of seems like there are no people with learning disabilities who can distinguish between types of humour, or whose sense of self doesn't depend on either a comedian or 'defender'. And I'm sure plenty of these people exist but the fact that we don't hear their voices indicates to me that a rational portrayal of those with learning disabilities as individuals is being denied by media because they wouldn't sell so much shit if they didn't keep the public hysterical)
Quote: sootyj @ January 31 2012, 2:43 PM GMTI don't suggest either be banned, demonised chased into the outer realms of cable TV.
But rather atleast the offence they caused be recognised. And maybe it's not unreasonable for them to look a little at their material?
This is an interesting debate. Saying that the likes of Boyle and Jimmy Carr are like modern day Bernard Manning types is to me simply a case of perception. I have seen both of their most recent stand-up DVDs and they are funny because they are trying to push the boundaries of what can be joked about. The audience is there to laugh at their style of comedy, they want to be shocked. I like some of what they do but I don't think it's particularly clever stuff, both can get a bit tiresome. The shock factor is how they choose to ply their trade and asking them to care about the effect their jokes could have on some is a bit pointless in my opinion. Jimmy Carr goes to pains to explain that his intention is not to offend and to an extent Boyle makes it clear that to some extent his intention is to offend. I would argue that at the end of the day niether actually care if they do offend.....it's only a joke after all is said and done.
My point being that there should be a broad selection of comics so that all tastes are catered for. If you don't like one particular comic and his style, don't watch him or her.
I get offended by comedy such as Two and a Half Men and Two Pints Of Lager for no other reason than that I think it's lazy and bad comedy. Do I complain? No, I just choose not to watch it.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 31 2012, 2:57 PM GMTThank you very much, I wish more people would appreciate my comedy writing skills.
Every single comedian makes a joke about some form of mental illness - whether it's something innocuous like OCD to full on autism to psychotic rage. Where do you draw the line?
Another interesting question.
Certainly Boyle's jokes on mental illness to me were far more offensive. Perhaps there are a great many mentally ill comics, mentally ill politicians and as a group they advocate for themselves quite well?
Or is it that it's a line of good taste? Personal judgement, something like that.
Autism is interesting. There seems to be a tolerance for having characters who act autistic, but not actually are autistic?
Presumably you draw the line where conscience dictates, if you have one.
As Voltaire didn't say, "I disapprove of everything you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." To which I would add the corollary that I would also defend to the death my right to call you a knob for saying it. I think what offends me most is people being offended that other people have the right to say that they have been offended.
Quote: Bob Hicks @ January 31 2012, 3:05 PM GMTThis is an interesting debate. Saying that the likes of Boyle and Jimmy Carr are like modern day Bernard Manning types is to me simply a case of perception. I have seen both of their most recent stand-up DVDs and they are funny because they are trying to push the boundaries of what can be joked about. The audience is there to laugh at their style of comedy, they want to be shocked. I like some of what they do but I don't think it's particularly clever stuff, both can get a bit tiresome. The shock factor is how they choose to ply their trade and asking them to care about the effect their jokes could have on some is a bit pointless in my opinion. Jimmy Carr goes to pains to explain that his intention is not to offend and to an extent Boyle makes it clear that to some extent his intention is to offend. I would argue that at the end of the day niether actually care if they do offend.....it's only a joke after all is said and done.
My point being that there should be a broad selection of comics so that all tastes are catered for. If you don't like one particular comic and his style, don't watch him or her.
I get offended by comedy such as Two and a Half Men and Two Pints Of Lager for no other reason than that I think it's lazy and bad comedy. Do I complain? No, I just choose not to watch it.
I suppose the question is where does the artist's responsibility end?
And is the individual's taste sacrosanct?
Quote: AJGO @ January 31 2012, 3:03 PM GMTWasn't Carr doing an experimental 'what would you laugh at because you're en masse' thing?
And didn't Gervais explicitly say he didn't realise it was offensive in the way it was taken and apologised?
And Boyle was trying to have a go at Jordan and took it further than people were comfortable with?
I would never stick up for discrimination but you can think individuals are unpleasant or unfunny and still find it as sickening that people seem to be getting off on ignoring facts so they can enjoy the sound of themselves shrieking.
(This isn't aimed at you sooty, who is actually concerned about sociological and practical effects, it's aimed at hysterical media only giving voices to those who ignite an unhelpful debate. It kind of seems like there are no people with learning disabilities who can distinguish between types of humour, or whose sense of self doesn't depend on either a comedian or 'defender'. And I'm sure plenty of these people exist but the fact that we don't hear their voices indicates to me that a rational portrayal of those with learning disabilities as individuals is being denied by media because they wouldn't sell so much shit if they didn't keep the public hysterical)
I love you.
All this thread has proven to me is that I do not type quick enough! 
Quote: Bob Hicks @ January 31 2012, 3:05 PM GMTI get offended by comedy such as Two and a Half Men and Two Pints Of Lager
Perhaps you are prejudiced towards the number two?
Quote: Timbo @ January 31 2012, 3:06 PM GMTI think what offends me most is people being offended that other people have the right to say that they have been offended.
What offends me are complete hypocrites who think they have the right to be the arbiter of my personal taste. Those who think they are morally superior and have the right to censor whatever they please based on their own personal motivations.
Anyone can be offended by anything - especially if it's on the BBC.
Quote: sootyj @ January 31 2012, 3:09 PM GMTI suppose the question is where does the artist's responsibility end?
And is the individual's taste sacrosanct?
If they didn't get an audience they would change their material very quickly. I would argue that comedy does not have a responsibility. All comedy serves a purpose - to make you laugh. I for one like to hear a joke or routine that makes me actually question why I find something funny. Many jokes should not be funny and it's the fact that they are that makes comedy such a wonderfully thought provoking medium.
Quote: AJGO @ January 31 2012, 3:03 PM GMTWasn't Carr doing an experimental 'what would you laugh at because you're en masse' thing?
And didn't Gervais explicitly say he didn't realise it was offensive in the way it was taken and apologised?
And Boyle was trying to have a go at Jordan and took it further than people were comfortable with?
I would never stick up for discrimination but you can think individuals are unpleasant or unfunny and still find it as sickening that people seem to be getting off on ignoring facts so they can enjoy the sound of themselves shrieking.
(This isn't aimed at you sooty, who is actually concerned about sociological and practical effects, it's aimed at hysterical media only giving voices to those who ignite an unhelpful debate. It kind of seems like there are no people with learning disabilities who can distinguish between types of humour, or whose sense of self doesn't depend on either a comedian or 'defender'. And I'm sure plenty of these people exist but the fact that we don't hear their voices indicates to me that a rational portrayal of those with learning disabilities as individuals is being denied by media because they wouldn't sell so much shit if they didn't keep the public hysterical)
So basically Ricky is not only a comedy iconoclast, he's a one man Milgram experiment, proving how his audience is a mindless mob. Forced to laugh at his jokes and pay his entrance fee?
So he gets to have his un-PC joke cake, his reflecting dark trends cake and then his post ironic actually I'm politically correct cream cake with a cherry on top.
All that cake and he still managed to lose weight?
So maybe his intentions were good (and I have a bridge you might want to buy).
But then he can at least take ownership that it didn't work out how he wanted it to.
Quote: zooo @ January 31 2012, 3:12 PM GMTPerhaps you are prejudiced towards the number two?
That made me laugh. Thank you
Quote: Bob Hicks @ January 31 2012, 3:15 PM GMTIf they didn't get an audience they would change their material very quickly. I would argue that comedy does not have a responsibility. All comedy serves a purpose - to make you laugh. I for one like to hear a joke or routine that makes me actually question why I find something funny. Many jokes should not be funny and it's the fact that they are that makes comedy such a wonderfully thought provoking medium.
The problem for me is precisely why I love comedy. F**k music, art, drama, mime and clog dancing.
The laugh is the most primal human expression.
The good comedian punches his fist right into your chest and grabs you by your greasy, wet internal organs and squeezes.
Comedy is hugely powerful. And of course it is the job of the comedian to be an unleashed force tearing through all boundaries and norms.
Just every now and then is it so bad to pause just a little? Occasionally?
