Comedy is in the eye of the beholder...
Apr. 30th, 2024 09:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatSo Seinfeld on his publicity tour for the new flick "Frosted", got himself into trouble for proclaiming that PC Culture from the Extreme Left is Ruining TV Comedy
“Nothing really affects comedy. People always need it. They need it so badly and they don’t get it,” Seinfeld said. “It used to be, you would go home at the end of the day, most people would go, ‘Oh, “Cheers” is on. Oh, “MASH” is on. Oh, “Mary Tyler Moore” is on. “All in the Family” is on.’ You just expected, ‘There’ll be some funny stuff we can watch on TV tonight.’ Well, guess what—where is it? This is the result of the extreme left and P.C. crap, and people worrying so much about offending other people.”
Me: Eh, it's on about a million streaming channels, cable channels, the internet, and podcasts? Where have you been?
I have a feeling he wasn't entirely serious - and probably being satirical. Seinfeld's comedy tends to be satirical in nature (as seen in the comedy Seinfeld.)
That said, he has a valid point. The extreme left can be well.. a bunch of self-righteous cyber-bullies or to a lesser extent self-righteous jerks? Particularly on social media. I have this overwhelming urge to thrust them and the alt-right into a room, add either guns or COVID, and see who survives. I'd either get a round of kumbayaya or crazed zombies.
They are also a wee bit hypocritical. Out of one side of their mouths they are condemning content that they find offensive and wanting to "cancel" the creators, while out of the other side of their mouths they are condemning people who ban things or censor, or condemn content.
The alt-right condemns content, but gets upset when the extreme left bans content the alt-right endorses. And the extreme left condemns content that it finds offensive, and gets upset when the alt-right bans content it endorses.
The two need to shake hands and learn to be tolerant of each other, however painful it might be. I know it's painful, there's stuff the alt-right loves that makes me want to run into the hills screaming. But the difficulty with human rights is the folks you don't like get them too, otherwise we have fascism and it doesn't work.
I remember explaining this once to a former boss on the subway. It was my second week on the job. I'd been about twenty-three months without one. And former boss had a 9/11 shrine in her office dedicated to Rudy Giuliania and loved George W. Bush, and hated the Clintons. Other than that? She was a lovely person.
Former Boss: You know what - the Nazi's had the right idea. It was efficient. Orderly. People knew what to do. Everything had its place. No arguments.
Me (after a moment of two of thought): Yeah, that works really well, if you agree with the people in charge and your values, and views match theirs. But what if they don't? What if your religion, or your views are the opposite? Such as say they hate dogs, but you love dogs? And they crunch down on your rights? I mean that's a big risk to take with an authoritarian regime.
Former Boss: Hmm. That's a really good point, I never thought of it that way. Thanks for bringing that up.
See, this is why reading broadly is important. I fell in love with reading, television and film - all stories really - because I like being in another person's head for a bit. Seeing the world from their point of view. I also find it easier than listening to folks talk. So there's that.
At any rate - I agree and disagree with Seinfeld. I agree that it's wrong to censor something just because it offends us or our sensibilities. As a friend once pointed out to me - she liked reading Flannery O'Connor because it helped her understand a view different from her own. She's Black, and O'Connor was white Antebellum South. "I like to know how the otherside thinks." Her statement stayed with me years later. To just read the books the further our own worldview or sensibilities, means that we never understand the other side, or see it? I'm not suggesting we all go read Mein Kampf or Trump's book, The Art of the Deal. But I'm not sure it helps to censor them either.
My view on human rights has always been - that they should be upheld to the extent that they aren't directly harming someone else or infringing on another's rights. So it depends on the content? Child pornography obviously should be banned, its infringing on the rights of children and putting their safety at risk. But off-color jokes in a stand-up routine? Just don't watch the stand-up routine. Or a comedy that is a bit off-color or offensive - just don't watch it. But if the jokes are in the workplace? Then yes, they shouldn't be done. It depends on whether or not the viewer/reader can choose to ignore or can avoid the content. If you can't - say you are in a cubicle and your coworkers joke about women's breasts all day long - than yes, that's a violation. But if you are at a stand-up comedy revue with a comedian that you know loves to make off-color and crude jokes - than well, you could leave.
I think people have the right to their views and should not be condemned for them. Because I want that right as well. Also, I'm not always certain I'm right about things - actually I figure I'm most likely wrong 80-90% of the time, and am trying to be curious about other's views.
A lot of folks online don't appear to be curious. They are so certain they are right. And they've surrounded themselves with like minded souls. I remember once having a discussion with some friends years ago over lunch. I bemoaned the fact that they didn't agree with me and it would so much easier to be surrounded by like-minded souls that did. And they replied, how boring would that be? Also how would you know you were wrong? And don't you want to be challenged? They were right. It's far better to have a diversity of opinions. Being surrounded by Yes-Men or folks who enable one point of view over all others - isn't necessarily a good thing. Being questioned, is how I learn and remain curious.
“Nothing really affects comedy. People always need it. They need it so badly and they don’t get it,” Seinfeld said. “It used to be, you would go home at the end of the day, most people would go, ‘Oh, “Cheers” is on. Oh, “MASH” is on. Oh, “Mary Tyler Moore” is on. “All in the Family” is on.’ You just expected, ‘There’ll be some funny stuff we can watch on TV tonight.’ Well, guess what—where is it? This is the result of the extreme left and P.C. crap, and people worrying so much about offending other people.”
Me: Eh, it's on about a million streaming channels, cable channels, the internet, and podcasts? Where have you been?
I have a feeling he wasn't entirely serious - and probably being satirical. Seinfeld's comedy tends to be satirical in nature (as seen in the comedy Seinfeld.)
That said, he has a valid point. The extreme left can be well.. a bunch of self-righteous cyber-bullies or to a lesser extent self-righteous jerks? Particularly on social media. I have this overwhelming urge to thrust them and the alt-right into a room, add either guns or COVID, and see who survives. I'd either get a round of kumbayaya or crazed zombies.
They are also a wee bit hypocritical. Out of one side of their mouths they are condemning content that they find offensive and wanting to "cancel" the creators, while out of the other side of their mouths they are condemning people who ban things or censor, or condemn content.
The alt-right condemns content, but gets upset when the extreme left bans content the alt-right endorses. And the extreme left condemns content that it finds offensive, and gets upset when the alt-right bans content it endorses.
The two need to shake hands and learn to be tolerant of each other, however painful it might be. I know it's painful, there's stuff the alt-right loves that makes me want to run into the hills screaming. But the difficulty with human rights is the folks you don't like get them too, otherwise we have fascism and it doesn't work.
I remember explaining this once to a former boss on the subway. It was my second week on the job. I'd been about twenty-three months without one. And former boss had a 9/11 shrine in her office dedicated to Rudy Giuliania and loved George W. Bush, and hated the Clintons. Other than that? She was a lovely person.
Former Boss: You know what - the Nazi's had the right idea. It was efficient. Orderly. People knew what to do. Everything had its place. No arguments.
Me (after a moment of two of thought): Yeah, that works really well, if you agree with the people in charge and your values, and views match theirs. But what if they don't? What if your religion, or your views are the opposite? Such as say they hate dogs, but you love dogs? And they crunch down on your rights? I mean that's a big risk to take with an authoritarian regime.
Former Boss: Hmm. That's a really good point, I never thought of it that way. Thanks for bringing that up.
See, this is why reading broadly is important. I fell in love with reading, television and film - all stories really - because I like being in another person's head for a bit. Seeing the world from their point of view. I also find it easier than listening to folks talk. So there's that.
At any rate - I agree and disagree with Seinfeld. I agree that it's wrong to censor something just because it offends us or our sensibilities. As a friend once pointed out to me - she liked reading Flannery O'Connor because it helped her understand a view different from her own. She's Black, and O'Connor was white Antebellum South. "I like to know how the otherside thinks." Her statement stayed with me years later. To just read the books the further our own worldview or sensibilities, means that we never understand the other side, or see it? I'm not suggesting we all go read Mein Kampf or Trump's book, The Art of the Deal. But I'm not sure it helps to censor them either.
My view on human rights has always been - that they should be upheld to the extent that they aren't directly harming someone else or infringing on another's rights. So it depends on the content? Child pornography obviously should be banned, its infringing on the rights of children and putting their safety at risk. But off-color jokes in a stand-up routine? Just don't watch the stand-up routine. Or a comedy that is a bit off-color or offensive - just don't watch it. But if the jokes are in the workplace? Then yes, they shouldn't be done. It depends on whether or not the viewer/reader can choose to ignore or can avoid the content. If you can't - say you are in a cubicle and your coworkers joke about women's breasts all day long - than yes, that's a violation. But if you are at a stand-up comedy revue with a comedian that you know loves to make off-color and crude jokes - than well, you could leave.
I think people have the right to their views and should not be condemned for them. Because I want that right as well. Also, I'm not always certain I'm right about things - actually I figure I'm most likely wrong 80-90% of the time, and am trying to be curious about other's views.
A lot of folks online don't appear to be curious. They are so certain they are right. And they've surrounded themselves with like minded souls. I remember once having a discussion with some friends years ago over lunch. I bemoaned the fact that they didn't agree with me and it would so much easier to be surrounded by like-minded souls that did. And they replied, how boring would that be? Also how would you know you were wrong? And don't you want to be challenged? They were right. It's far better to have a diversity of opinions. Being surrounded by Yes-Men or folks who enable one point of view over all others - isn't necessarily a good thing. Being questioned, is how I learn and remain curious.
no subject
Date: 2024-05-08 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-05-09 12:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-05-09 08:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-05-09 02:45 pm (UTC)ETA: of course it helps that I think metaphorically and am highly analytical. I don't tend to think literally. In short I reacted like Mr. Spock not Captain Kirk.