Utopia Talk / Politics / Comedy that Seb approves of

Rugian Member	Sun Jul 29 08:36:11 TL;DR: a fat Australian bulldyke makes a comedy special where she ditches the outdated concept of "joke telling" in favor of deconstructing stereotypes about gay people and breaking into tears about the time she was allegedly* raped. Predictably, virtually every media outlet on the planet slobbers all over this turd and proclaims it the greatest "comedy" special in years, despite the aforementioned lack of comedy. But hey, at least she didn't do a strip tease in front of Ron Paul a decade ago, so she's automatically better than that hack Sasha Baron Cohen, amirite? *I say "allegedly" because I fucking refuse to believe that any man could ever maintain an erection with this she-cow. She's literally unfuckable ---- The Comedy-Destroying, Soul-Affirming Art of Hannah Gadsby Creating the furious stand-up special “Nanette” was an act of self-preservation for the Australian star. The result has been a sensation “beyond my comprehension.” By Melena Ryzik July 24, 2018 Leer en español LOS ANGELES — Perhaps you’ve heard: Hannah Gadsby is angry, and she is amazing. Ms. Gadsby, an Australian comedian, is the creator of “Nanette,” a stage show turned Netflix special that is lacerating in its fury about how women and queer people like her, and anyone else who might behave or look “other,” get treated, dismissed and silenced. She is unflinching about the abuse that they — that she — endured, and the cultural norms that enabled it. She calls out men, powerful and otherwise. In stark personal terms, she reveals her own gender and sexual trauma, and doesn’t invite people to laugh at it. “Nanette” is an international sensation, the most-talked-about, written-about, shared-about comedy act in years, exquisitely timed to the #MeToo era. And in its success Ms. Gadsby has perhaps pointed the art form of stand-up in an altogether new direction, even as she has repeatedly vowed, onstage, to quit the business. “I have built a career out of self-deprecating humor, and I don’t want to do that anymore,” she says in the special. “Because do you understand what self-deprecation means when it comes from somebody who already exists in the margins? It’s not humility. It’s humiliation.” The response to “Nanette” is “beyond my comprehension,” Ms. Gadsby said one recent morning. She had arrived from Australia the night before, and was now blinking back jet lag, sitting at the long wooden dining table at her friend Jill Soloway’s house here in Los Angeles (the friendship was also born of the show). She was tired, not just from the trip but also from touring this act, which stopped in New York and London, among other cities, and in 2017 won major prizes at both the Melbourne International Comedy Festival and the Edinburgh Fringe. “Over 250 times I did that show, and it took a toll,” she said. “I need to spend the next year mostly napping.” (She will perform it one last time, at the Just for Laughs comedy festival in Montreal on July 27.) The comedian Tig Notaro, who chronicled her cancer diagnosis in a special that also changed her life, said she was “utterly floored” by Ms. Gadsby’s hourlong show. “‘Nanette’ should be required viewing if you’re a human being,” she wrote in an email. “It really takes days to take in everything she presented, to fully comprehend it all.” Ms. Gadsby, she added, was disrupting comedy. “It’s going to be very interesting to see what comedians do post-‘Nanette,’” she wrote. It’s a dividing line. “She cleared the table for necessary regrowth.” The creation of “Nanette” felt like a fever dream, prompted by Australia’s virulent debate on same-sex marriage, and coming shortly after Ms. Gadsby received a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and ADHD. Together, those events gave her a new clarity about her life and the torment she suffered — and how things might have been different, if the world was more accepting of people like her. “Writing the show, I think I was insane,” Ms. Gadsby, 40, said. “I was a hot mess. I had so much just suddenly crystallize in my head, and I just needed to get it out.” More than anything in her decade-plus stand-up career, “Nanette” is a manifestation of the way her mind works, she said. Performing it wasn’t therapeutic, exactly, “because it’s so [expletive] hard to do,” she said. “But overall, it began to hold — some other people were holding my pain, and I’ve never had that. I’ve never had that. And that has done a lot of healing, I think.” Ms. Gadsby came by her insecurities honestly. Growing up in small-town Tasmania, she was a blue-ribbon golfer, state champion twice over, she said. She started playing as a kid at the little country club where her mother worked as a cleaner, and where women then were not permitted to be full-fledged members, Ms. Gadsby said. They could tee off only at times that wouldn’t interfere with the men’s games. Sometimes they had to stop and serve the male members tea. Even in competition, she was made to understand a woman’s place. When her brother won a tournament, she noticed, he was awarded golf equipment, things that encouraged him to keep at the game. “I would win casserole dishes and vases,” she said. “I was basically winning stuff for my dowry.” Ms. Gadsby long ago stopped playing golf, but those experiences shaped her worldview, especially as she watched how her feisty mother was denigrated at work, “always told she’s being a mouthy, stupid woman.” Confrontation seemed exhausting. Instead, “I learned how to disappear,” Ms. Gadsby said. “I was invisible. I learned very early on. Well into my adult life, I was easily forgotten in a room, which meant I heard — I hear a lot.” She is still soft-spoken, not the kind to immediately own the space. (A brief stint leading museum tours ended because her charges just wandered off. “I’m not a natural leader,” she said.) Sitting at the table, when she waded into a topic she didn’t expect to cover, she seemed a little bashful. But when she knew she had a good joke coming, she prefaced it with a small, sideways smile: Her mind was a half-step ahead of yours. She didn’t want to mention autism in “Nanette,” she said. “But what I want to do is sort of go, do you know what? There’s value in the differently thinking.” Her First Time at the Mic Ms. Gadsby studied art history and curatorship at Australian National University in Canberra. She worked at a bookshop and at an outdoor cinema as a projectionist, then became an itinerant farmhand. She was adrift. In her late 20s, on a whim, she entered an open mic competition sponsored by the Melbourne Comedy Festival. It was a weird decision, but she was making a lot of those back then. She was also technically homeless at the time, she said. She knew she was funny. “It’s how I participated in life without participating,” she said. Her first time at the mic, she did a surreal bit about freezing her dead dog. (“I’ve always been very uplifting.”) She made it to the state finals, and felt preternaturally comfortable onstage. “I’m frightened of smaller interactions, but I could talk to a large room almost immediately, which is, you know, a backward wiring,” she said. In retrospect, her inability to engage with the world in standard fashion was related to her autism. “I could never reconcile how I could be both childlike and really, really smart,” she said. “Like, I’ve got an incredibly high IQ, but I can’t read a bus timetable.” As she began doing comedy, her siblings — she is the youngest of five — helped her out with housing, and her parents (her father is a retired math teacher) supported her career choice. To navigate the neurotypical world, she said, she now knows, “I always need external scaffolding.” (Autism in women is underdiagnosed, researchers say. The revelation often comes later in life, because the signs that are familiar in men may not exist for women, and it’s largely men whose conditions have been studied. For Ms. Gadsby, the diagnosis was “both a devastating and wonderful moment.”) Ms. Gadsby’s family knew some of the trauma she had been through, but when they came to see “Nanette” early on, she modified it because, she said, it was “unfair to subject them to that kind of sucker punch in a roomful of strangers.” (Spoilers ahead.) The show is built around her story of one assault at a bus stop, which she tells in detail — first for laughs, and then, near the end of the set, with galvanizing horror and rage. Ms. Gadsby also mentions other serious, predatory violations in her childhood and young adulthood, without spelling much out; she did not feel ready, she said, “because I knew those people.” “I don’t want people playing detectives in my world,” she added, trying to find the perpetrators. “That’s like trauma porn — like, let’s go back and solve the crime! And I don’t think that that’s helpful at all, because that still keeps things centered on the trauma.” Better to move forward, and try to change toxic and predatory male culture. As she relived these atrocious experiences onstage, over and over again, Ms. Gadsby built up a kind of callus. Then her mother, Kay Gadsby, happened to be in the audience, at the Sydney Opera House, when the show was taped for Netflix. Ms. Gadsby couldn’t change the material to protect her that night. Her sister and a brother were also in the crowd, but it was her mother’s shock of white hair she could see from the stage. The performance was raw before, but “having Mum in the audience, it was no skin,” she said. “You can see that in the film.” She nearly broke down before the cameras. Audiences are in tears, too. Josh Thomas, a young Australian star who hired Ms. Gadsby as a writer and performer on his TV series “Please Like Me,” about a young man coming out, thought that as a gay man with a supportive family himself, he had it easy. “But then,” he wrote in an email, “I see storytelling like Hannah’s, where she rages about the homophobia in the world, and I cry and I realize that I grew up with so much shame.” “Nanette,” he added, “made me question if I could have made more space for people that are different, as well as empowering me to stop people from taking space away from me because I’m different. I feel like it’s permanently changed my point of view.” Making the Audience Complicit One of the most ingenious aspects is how, as Ms. Gadsby works toward the most painful and shocking material, she lobs occasional straightforward jokes at viewers — her grandmother told her that Mr. Right could be just around the corner; “I have been approaching every corner with caution since then,” she quips — making them into her unlikely partner in dismantling the allure of comedy altogether. “I think that the magic trick of the show is that it is funny, and then it turns funny inside out,” said Mike Birbiglia, the comedian and filmmaker. Of Ms. Gadsby’s skill and polish behind the mic, he said, “You can tell right away, yeah, this is someone who kills all the time, and then is choosing to do something different.” In “Nanette,” Ms. Gadsby explains that while a story has three parts — beginning, middle and end — a joke only has two, setup and punch line. There is, therefore, no satisfying conclusion to a joke, she says, the audience’s laughter notwithstanding. Comedians from Kumail Nanjiani to Kathy Griffin have tweeted their awe at what Ms. Gadsby accomplished. “It’ll change your life,” Ms. Griffin wrote. Netflix does not release viewership data, but judging by its social media mentions, ”Nanette” is among its most-positively received specials ever, a spokeswoman said.“But then,” he wrote in an email, “I see storytelling like Hannah’s, where she rages about the homophobia in the world, and I cry and I realize that I grew up with so much shame.” “Nanette,” he added, “made me question if I could have made more space for people that are different, as well as empowering me to stop people from taking space away from me because I’m different. I feel like it’s permanently changed my point of view.” Making the Audience Complicit One of the most ingenious aspects is how, as Ms. Gadsby works toward the most painful and shocking material, she lobs occasional straightforward jokes at viewers — her grandmother told her that Mr. Right could be just around the corner; “I have been approaching every corner with caution since then,” she quips — making them into her unlikely partner in dismantling the allure of comedy altogether. “I think that the magic trick of the show is that it is funny, and then it turns funny inside out,” said Mike Birbiglia, the comedian and filmmaker. Of Ms. Gadsby’s skill and polish behind the mic, he said, “You can tell right away, yeah, this is someone who kills all the time, and then is choosing to do something different.” In “Nanette,” Ms. Gadsby explains that while a story has three parts — beginning, middle and end — a joke only has two, setup and punch line. There is, therefore, no satisfying conclusion to a joke, she says, the audience’s laughter notwithstanding. Comedians from Kumail Nanjiani to Kathy Griffin have tweeted their awe at what Ms. Gadsby accomplished. “It’ll change your life,” Ms. Griffin wrote. Netflix does not release viewership data, but judging by its social media mentions, ”Nanette” is among its most-positively received specials ever, a spokeswoman said. But some comedy purists have taken issue with the idea that “Nanette” is stand-up at all, though it’s billed that way online. Not enough jokes, they say. Mr. Birbiglia, who also made his name with solo stage shows that delved into personal issues, said the show was part of a larger movement in comedy — reflected in the work of Ms. Notaro and others — to reach higher. “It just makes you think, let’s go one step deeper. That’s what it did for me and a lot of comedians,” he said. Ms. Gadsby vociferously pushed back at her critics. “I’LL SETTLE THIS,” she shouted on Twitter. “My show is NOT stand up comedy” because that’s an art form designed by men for men. As a student of art history, she looked to multidisciplinary figures like Louise Bourgeois for inspiration. A few years ago, Ms. Gadsby made a comedic video series doing close reads of artworks. In “Nanette,” she does an extended riff on the misogyny of Pablo Picasso, connecting it, eventually, to Donald J. Trump. (This, she said, is her pattern-seeing autistic mind at work.) Her early material was personal but not quite as cerebral, with bits about her weight and being a lesbian. She did the club circuit in Australia and Britain, and didn’t relish it. “It’s unsafe for a woman,” she said, adding: “I’m not interested in talking to drunk men. I did that as a kid” in her country club days. “I didn’t like it.” In the show, she excoriates Bill Cosby, convicted of sexual assault, and Harvey Weinstein, who is accused of it. Sitting at the dining table, we talked about Louis C.K., whose comedy she didn’t particularly care for even before he admitted to masturbating in front of colleagues. The success of “Nanette,” she said, proved to her there was “a huge thirst for other voices.” The Conversation We Need to Have Ms. Gadsby began writing “Nanette” — it’s named for a barista she had been observing — in mid-2016. The debate over a same-sex marriage bill, which Australian lawmakers passed in 2017, unearthed her own internalized homophobia, she said. As she unraveled that in herself, she wondered if she could forge a new connection with an audience by making a show about it. She worried that it would need a trigger warning, but decided that’s what the show was partly about: the inability to have these kind of cultural conversations. Was there also ambition, I asked her, and confidence in the comedy skills she’d honed over a decade that made her take the leap to such a difficult message? “I’m ashamed to admit that it came from somewhere a little bit more bitter,” she said. Her career had plateaued, she felt, and as she watched mediocre men climb the entertainment ladder, she got angry: “I do what they do, and probably better, and from a harder point.” She resolved to tear comedy down — she used a different, bodily term — “and leave.” Besides writing a book based on “Nanette,” Ms. Gadsby doesn’t know what she will do next. She’s not eager to get back onstage again. I asked if she was still angry. “Yeah,” she said softly. “My life shouldn’t have been as hard as it was.” But the low self-esteem that plagued her, that she broke down nightly, has been boosted a bit by the glow of “Nanette.” That’s not to say she thinks anyone who’s suffered, survived in silence, should go perform what happened to them. “Part of what undoes shame is to be heard, to be seen,” she said. “I did that on a grand scale. I don’t want people to look at me and go, see, queer people, this is how it’s done. It’s like, no, this is how it shouldn’t have to be done. “But it’s important that we start to think about ways that we can hold these stories, or provide a framework for people to not hold all this burden.” She mentioned Louis C.K. again, and the possibility that he might mount a comeback. “I don’t want to stop him,” she said. “It’s worth just to see, if he does have an audience.” There were 18 seconds left on my interview tape: I didn’t expect it to take a turn. Ms. Gadsby, of course, had other ideas. “If he does have an audience, then I won’t be quitting stand-up,” Ms. Gadsby said, and laughed. “Quote me on that: If Louis C.K. finds his audience, I will definitely not quit stand-up. Because my work here is not done.” “Say that I said it with a cheeky smile,” she added, and left the table. http://www...nah-gadsby-comedy-nanette.html
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 29 10:43:22 Everything about this story seems manufactured and fake. This is not the first time someone has gone on a stage and talked about how horrible getting raped is. WTF is all of this even about?
hood Member	Sun Jul 29 11:31:50 This seems to be a thing these days. Watched the new Iliza Shlesinger special on netflix, was probably half as funny as her original one. Half the special was just sermonizing on feminism. And the other half was funny.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 29 11:44:16 Women...
Victim Member	Sun Jul 29 12:11:34 "*I say "allegedly" because I fucking refuse to believe that any man could ever maintain an erection with this she-cow. She's literally unfuckable" Is it possible that she gained weight after the rape to protect herself against men like you?
Rugian Member	Sun Jul 29 12:20:38 Victim, "The most powerful example of this violence, and the one Nanette really turns on, is a story about a time Gadsby was mistaken for a man by a stranger who thought she was trying to hit on his girlfriend. He called her a "faggot" and threatened to beat her up, and then became apologetic when he realized she was a woman. The first time Gadsby tells the story, it ends there. The man's behavior is absurd, and we laugh at him. It was an unpleasant situation, but nothing all that bad happened, and no one's scarred for life. Later on, Gadsby returns to the story and tells the part she hasn't told about because it isn't funny: after the man walked away, he realized she was a lesbian — or a "lady faggot", as he put it — came back, and beat her. And no one helped her."
Pillz Member	Sun Jul 29 13:57:01 Lmao
Seb Member	Sun Jul 29 14:19:54 I did see it actually. It was compelling viewing. I wouldn't call it comedy, which is rather the point she made. It is a polemic - in the classic sense. And no, it's not the only time someone's done something like this, but it was both intelligent, articulate and very well executed piece. If you haven't watched it, you should. But not if you are looking for a laugh. Nim: Nihil nova sub sola. You should watch it. Perhaps some ideas might cut through. Get out of your bubble etc. What's this all about though? Not rapists. More about people who behave like you and hood, how you come across.
hood Member	Sun Jul 29 15:56:36 "I wouldn't call it comedy" She did, though. Called it a comedy special.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 29 16:11:25 Hood: Have you watched it? If you had you probably wouldn't be saying that.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 29 16:13:49 Also, do we really think there's an absolute definition of comedy and that if so it would be narrow enough not to include this? You seem very caught up in definitions - what a good friend of mine describes as "psycho-rigid"
Pillz Member	Sun Jul 29 16:19:29 Seb probably listens to it on his daily commute every day. That's the impression I'm getting.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 29 16:24:13 I live between the bubbles seb. And I have seen it, so stop acting all woke and smug and so on.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 29 16:37:13 "Flat Out Hilarious!" is a quote on the back of Lost in Translation http://vhs...scovers/LostInTranslation2.jpg hopefully many people were fired
hood Member	Sun Jul 29 17:09:43 "Have you watched it?" How is that relevant? It is advertised as a comedy special. Literally everyone calls it a comedy special. Comedy specials are comedy. If you are not calling it comedy, well then there's the problem here as it's being (apparently falsely) advertised as a comedy special. I'm not making any judgment on the content, here. You said it wasn't comedy. Everyone else labels it as comedy. I did offer judgment on Iliza Shlesinger, who spent half of her recent comedy special being all serious and preachy. I watched that. I found it roughly half as funny as her first 2 specials. I'm not sure why you have a bug up your ass on this.
Rugian Member	Sun Jul 29 17:39:05 Seb, Let's ignore the multitudes of media sites and institutional organizations that have utilized the "comedy" label for this special, such as the numerous "Best Comedy Show" and "Best Comedy Special of the Year" awards that it has received since coming out. Even if you cast all that aside, Netflix inserted the "comedy" word into its trailer for this garbage. I don't care what the whale nominally declared this abomination to be; it's being billed to the mass audiences as a comedy special. Putting that aside for a moment though, I have a real question for you. No trolling even, I'm authentically curious about this. How does a (presumably) straight man like yourself see the advertising for this garbage and honestly think "yes, this is something that I would like to see?
Rugian Member	Sun Jul 29 17:54:16 Hood, The "comedians don't need to be comedic" trend has unfortunately been in vogue for a while now. Just look at Amy Schumer and how she'd go on lengthy detours to rant about conservatives and shill for Hillary in front of her audiences rather than, you know, being funny. Honestly, stand-up comedy peaked in the '00s, when you had geniuses like Colin Quinn, Patrice O'Neal, Greg Giraldo, Bill Burr, and Louis CK (per-pretentious douchebag era) performing. Guys who legitimately tried to be funny, rather than the current generation of whores who confuse clapter comedy with the genuine thing. The sad state of the contemporary comedic world is a prime example of how progression != progress. Schumer, Shlesinger, Gadsby, and ever last LA hack who thinks that being funny means spending 90 minutes reciting SJW talking points should be permanently banned from the industry.
Rugian Member	Sun Jul 29 17:55:16 Fucking fuck *pre-pretentious *every last
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 29 18:18:13 "I'm not sure why you have a bug up your ass on this." Hellooo? This is seb, the thread title literally told him to come here and be seb. And he did.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 29 18:37:20 Even if he has not watched the special, the story has enough buzzwords on the right side of the culture war (lesbian rape victim raging against men) for seb to let the autopilot handle this one. He can then, if needed go and watch the special and confirm what was already known. It is a lesbian woman, telling jokes, raging on men and telling her story about being gay, assaulted and raped and generally expressing SJW talking point, like Rugian said. Not so much in the special as in the interview, but together the narrative is very clear. Waaaahy am I less successful than male comedians (that I think are mediocre and don't find funny but lots of other do), I have it so much tougher! ^Comedy that seb approves of^
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sun Jul 29 19:45:07 I just had a good laugh. MSNBC is showing 'All The Presidents Men' at 8:00 PM. Are they giving up the news? Whatever will you liberals watch to get your news?
Forwyn Member	Sun Jul 29 20:14:22 "Netflix does not release viewership data, but judging by its social media mentions, ”Nanette” is among its most-positively received specials ever, a spokeswoman said." Hurrrrr durrrrrr Twitter likes it so it's a masterpiece
Nekran Member	Sun Jul 29 22:16:44 I didn't see these complaints when George Carlin stopped telling jokes and started mostly preaching about the sad state the world was in. I'd not even heard of this before reading about it here just now. I might watch it... my curiosity is tickled. Will it be terrible preachiness or will it be a view on the world that will make me laugh for both rasons of comedy as of desperation for the sorry state the world is in, as Carlin sometimes made me do? We'll see... If I watch it, I might come and draw a conclusion here.
hood Member	Mon Jul 30 00:32:53 Carlin's rants were funny. You can definitely rant/preach in a comedic way.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 01:52:00 Hood: I said I wouldn't call it comedy. I did not say "it's not comedy". Such a statement would be assenine. I'm not sure enough people would know what a "polemic laced with humour and jokes" is for that to be a viable marketing strategy. And throughout she makes the point she's telling her story and not making comedy and the structural limitations of comedy. Why do *I* have a bug in my ass? You are the one that's just written an angry post because I offered the view that it's not best described as comedy and it's triggered you. And suggest you watch it to see how she describes it (hint, marketing will be being done by Netflix). Jesus, have swank and calm down. Nim: "Wtf is thus all about" didn't scream "I've watched this". And respectfully, you don't come across as being able to comprehend anything. Rugian: Yes let's. On account of them not being me, me being an independent individual and free to make my own arguments. Are you basically objecting to it being called a comedy because *you* didn't find it funny, on a count of it being a full throated attack on your world view? Nim: Oh please. I actually look at things before reaching conclusions, unlike those who e.g. read abstract of a paper and decide they don't need to read it before citing. It's predictable you wouldn't like a show where the jokes are primarily aimed at your world view. A bit uncomfortable? God you guys are so lacking in self awareness. "Woman makes humour laced criticism of our shitty entitled world view, and it's popular. It can't be funny if we didn't laugh". Kind of proving that whole entitlement/privilege thing right? Not "eh, not for me" but irritation, disbelief and condemnation that someone dared make something not aimed squarely at your taste. Bit pathetic guys, you are rather letting the side down. Man the fuck up.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 03:31:43 Seb Watched it, nothing happened, no new revelations. Although I do agree with her on fear of men. Women should have a healthy rational fear of men. I have said it myself, so all in all nothing new under the sun. When she was funny she was funny, but too preach, too serious. Honest expression of her thoughts, difficult to make that funny and not alienate. If I disagree with the premise it all falls down. Nekran There are definitly those who thought Carling got too preachy at the end, and that his last stuff was not his best. Carlin was a fucking legend when he did that, still the same words were uttered about him.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 04:08:31 Isn't the basis of your complaints on mob trashing of e.g. Ansari? That it means innocent men must live in constant fear of being monstered in public? And how can you possibly disagree that there are structural imbalances created when half the population must have "a healthy, rational fear of" of the other, and instead look for bullshit explanations rooted in misunderstood snippets of biological sciences? And why should women have to live in a healthy, rational fear of men any more than "Immigrants should have a healthy, rational fear of natives"? What is healthy and rational about any of this? Anyway,it was a serious piece with a serious point. It was intended to make that point, not necessarily make you laugh if you disagree with that point. I'd say you not laughing, given your views, is probably a mark of success. For those that sincerely believe the "healthy, rational" state of women is to live in fear, yeah, not much funny to be found.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 06:07:52 The structure in question is inherent biology as a product of evolution. I view that reality the same way I view being cautious around crocodiles or really any other dangerous predators. Men are generally more violent and also physically stronger than women. Your creationist resistance to basic biology is of no interest to me. It is healthy and rational to mind your personal security and be aware that a good portion of 50% of the population can ragdoll you and kill you with their bare hands. Reality. Intelligent women or those with the misfortune of personal experience already know this. So yes, mind yourself and your surroundings. I say nothing about this being good or bad, it is a reality to be dealt with. This is a seperate issue from shaming people on social media for he said she said, some of which there isn’t even a consensus over even when reading the ”victim” testimony. So my advice is for the prevention of such incidents. Precisely because of how difficult it is afterwards, both emotionally and legally. I wish I could say I thought of this on my own, but the lesbian feminist Camille Paglia put it to words. ”Women should view men with a mix of gratitude and rational fear”. I concure. You should get out of your bubble and listen to more lesbians and feminists who don’t regurgitate what you already think.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 06:17:47 I think you are confused as fuck seb. It is marketed at stand up, what she decides to do and rant about and ”quit comedy” is her choice and her right. Metallica can arrange a concert in which half way through they stop playing music and preach about something that happened 20 years ago and quit rock music. If their rantings appeal to you you may find it insightful and a new moment for rock music. If it doesn’t and you distaree with fundamental aspect of the preaching, it will probably turn you off. As soon as you insert politics into it then you will be judged according to what you say and according to the scope of my worldview.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 06:31:53 ”A bit uncomfortable?” I would say any disagreement comes with some sense of uncomfort for the parties. What is your point? Are you some big consumer of preachy stand up that preaches against you world views? Please list all the comedian who fit this description who you watch. Go watch 1 episode of Louder with Crowder and come back and tell me you thought it was insightful, funny and revolutionary to watch a conservative comedian (there fewer of them than lesbian comedians) poke at liberals/feminist and jump from satire to very serious segments. Let us read the review on UP. I dare you to step outside your bubble.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 06:47:34 "Oh please. I actually look at things before reaching conclusions" Laughable Mr I got the google memo from gizmodo and said it lacked citations :) I also remember in the Ansari thread, Deluded gave you a 10 min video answering some of your questions, which you refused to watch because people on the train would think you are some alt right person. Yea yea, go read before you reach conclusions, mr I don't want my mind so open my brain cells may fall out. You are a fair and balanced person, no doubt.
Dukhat Member	Mon Jul 30 06:49:44 "How does a (presumably) straight man like yourself see the advertising for this garbage and honestly think "yes, this is something that I would like to see? " Because not every man in the world is wrapped up in his own macho identity like you are? Wasn't that interested because it seems like half Ted talk and half Britishy comedy which doesn't suit me. But since it triggered Rugian, might be worth a watch. I think the reason it gets lauded more than it should be (so that it gets like 4 out of 5 stars instead of 3.5 out of 5 stars) is because it dares to be a little preachy and try to get people to change their beliefs. This is really uncomfortable for cuckservatives because their whole worldview is all about how they are always right and don't need to change. And so they exaggerate how bad this comedy is; compartementalizing their feelings and grouping it with actually terrible comedy (like Amy Schumer's horrible feminazi, plagiarizing bullshit). Grow up. Get out of your safe space.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 06:53:22 Nim: Look at the title of this thread. Look at my OP. Use your tiny, tiny mind.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 06:55:21 Nim: Yeah, even with the links, those links would not pass muster as citations. Dukhat: +1
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 06:58:10 Nim: So, here's the thing. You argue that it's natural that women should fear men. Why then is it wrong and unnatural that men should fear being socially shamed in public? Delude could summarise his points. He chose not to.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 07:02:09 Why are you still here and not watching Louder with Crowder?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 07:10:55 I argue that it is intelligent to have a rational fear for men if you are a woman. -5 points for reading comprehension. Lowder with Crowder, go and show us how out of the bubble you are. Have you even heard the name? I can sense fakeseb fakesebing, too smug for this to be authentic.
hood Member	Mon Jul 30 07:31:45 "And throughout she makes the point she's telling her story and not making comedy and the structural limitations of comedy." That's great. Did she bill her tour as non-comedy? If I was running a book reading tour suggesting I would be reading the latest mystery from a best selling mystery author, people would be pretty rightly confused if I started going into deep dives over the true extinction of dinosaurs. I mean, ITS A MYSTERY RIGHT!?!? Which is my point. She can say it isn't comedy on stage all she wants, but everything that got people to participate in her audience said "comedy!" "You are the one that's just written an angry post because I offered the view that it's not best described as comedy and it's triggered you. And suggest you watch it to see how she describes it (hint, marketing will be being done by Netflix)." 1. What have I said that remotely conveyed anger? 2. Pointing out that your opinion on the description of her special is irrelevant = being triggered? 3. See above. Hardly a Netflix thing. She wouldn't be performing at comedy festivals and winning comedy awards if everyone but Netflix was on the "not a comedy special" train. It's pretty much everyone except for you who calls this a comedy special. And then, apparently, also the performer once you've sat down for the show.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 07:36:38 Lol at dickface btw Has not watched it, he grades it and then tells everyone to get out of their safespace and go watch it. The walking unintended irony generator. +1 for that :) Please tell us all about your adventures outside the bubble I am dying to hear it!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 07:38:37 ”What have I said that remotely conveyed anger?” You disagreed with seb on something relating to women and only angry white men do that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 07:43:37 This phenomena is not even new or exclusive to comedy. Where you rehash an old concept and sell it as a watershed moment. I have now heard two female singers rant about how their sexy preformance and lyrics are somehow revolutionary in 2018 now when women do it TOO! You know why should sexuality only be used by men in their songs amirite? You can not make this shit up :)
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 08:23:03 Hood: Why is any of that - most of which will be decisions by Netflix - relevant as to whether *I* describe it as a comedy, or whether her own arguments repeatedly put in the act that it's not comedy relevant? It was a one off event, and much of the audience appeared to be enjoying it, and comissioned by Netflix I think (maybe jointly with whoever handles the venue performance) who probably handle marketing and box office. The question as to whether it makes you, nimatzo or rugian laugh is very literally beside the point. For someone who isn't angry, you seem to be highly emotionally involved on the point of exactly what to call it and the fact that I wouldn't describe it as comedy, no matter how Netflix decides to market it. You get weirdly obsessively beligerant about these kind of points, while being strangely unable to grasp granular points. A pedant with no grasp of details. If not anger, perhaps displaced sexual frustration? Does the term "high concept performance art, alternatively funny, poignant and forceful" do it for you?
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 08:27:45 Nim: The phenomenon isn't even limited to women performers, if you are going to make that criticism. I think people have been claiming old things are innovative since the first thing that was repeated. And shortly afterwards, the first person pointed that it wasn't original, who you are now shamelessly apeing. The merit wasn't that it was unique. It is still relatively uncommon as to be fresh for many who don't find the concept generally objectionable, and very well executed. Hence it is popular.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 08:31:10 BTW - if you sat down and watched the show you will recall she repeatedly says she's giving up comedy and about a third of the way in says "that's the last joke". I don't know about you, but I think anyone watching beyond there expecting a stand up routine is probably labouring under their own misconceptions.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 08:32:14 ”The question as to whether it makes you, nimatzo or rugian laugh is very literally beside the point.” Finally something we agree on. Different taste in comedy and different political groundings creates differences of opinion. Amazing. How is watching Lowder with Crowder going for you?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 08:37:38 I read the article in the OP and most of my criticism has been regarding the reception not the special itself. I watched it prior to this thread so see what the fuss was about. When will you step outside your bubble seb? So fake.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 08:39:04 Hood: Direct quotes from an interview: "I don’t think of Nanette as being a comedy show—I see it as a sledgehammer, because I think comedy needs to step up and grow up."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 08:40:24 >>Seb Member Mon Jul 30 08:31:10 BTW - if you sat down and watched the show you will recall she repeatedly says she's giving up comedy and<< >>Mon Jul 30 06:17:47 I think you are confused as fuck seb. It is marketed at stand up, what she decides to do and rant about and ”quit comedy” is her choice and her right.<< I am always steps ahead of you bro. Like I told you I live between the bubbles and your fakeness shines through like the sun.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 08:42:36 Yea it needs a step and grow and become something new, let us call it hmmm mmm ”spoken word”?
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 08:42:47 Nim: I'll let you know if I get to Lowder with Crowder. How on earth is criticism of the reception not a criticism of the show by proxy? How can one day how others *should* have received it, without making judgements on the show itself in context? This seems quite the silliest thing you've said this thread, filled with sillyness as it is.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 08:45:00 Nim: Do you think she controls the marketing? Self financing stand up comedians? I think you'll notice I pointed that out some time earlier. One step orthoganal to common sense and reality!
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 08:46:10 The btw was intended for hood in any case, could have been clearer on that I suppose.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 08:53:07 Reminds me of a conversation with one of the seb type ”men” at work right after Dave Chappelle released his last special and drew some criticism for the metoo bits. And I could hear this guy talking like someone who had not watched the special, but read a negative review. So I asked him what he specifically thought was so bad, he could not tell me, it was conveniently ”the whole thing”.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 09:04:24 "Men"... says a lot those quotes. Specifically "if you don't agree with me you are not a proper man". I thought you disagreed with this idea of gender being a social phenomenon?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 09:07:05 Well if you would use half your brain you would realize that the hype of the show and the show itself are not the same thing. I know you want this and my reaction to fit some neat box you have for it, but you should let it go. Step outside the bubble. The show regardless of category is not my taste, I appreciate her traumatic story for what it is on it’s own. I am generally apathetic to the special itself, she was sorta funny when she was doing funny but the preaching and the persecuting of men, not so much. If you do stand up you generally expect people to suspend disbelief and understand that these sre the the comedian real opinions. Not this one. This was her real opinions. To do that and have the audience with you, it needs to be your audience. I am not her audience, but I watched since it was apparently a big fuss in circles I disagree with. Just like I have read simone de beauvoir and Judith Butler, the grand mother of feminism and gender theory. Lest I end up a smug phoney. Live like you preach fakeseb, step outside the bubble.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 09:08:48 Tit for tat. Does me questioning your manhood, make you uncomfortable? I was just ”joking”.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 09:10:46 not so much up my ally*
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 09:10:46 not so much up my ally*
hood Member	Mon Jul 30 09:25:08 "It was a one off event, and much of the audience appeared to be enjoying it, and comissioned by Netflix I think (maybe jointly with whoever handles the venue performance) who probably handle marketing and box office." How cute, seb thinks he knows things! http://mas...netflix-producer/#2179aMAnuOqO "Nanette — which, at the time of its filming, was a touring special performed live by Gadsby each night" One off event? "Nanette arose out of Gadsby’s desire to quit comedy (which she has recently walked back), and for over 250 nights in various locations across the world she told hundreds of people exactly why." 250 nights. One off event? "Producers at Guesswork Television, ... , saw the live show and immediately saw its potential as a recorded special." + "Bruzzese said there were plans to record the show "well before Netflix was on board"" Commissioned by Netflix? Advertised by Netflix? What is this? What absurd nonsense are you speaking, seb? "For someone who isn't angry, you seem to be highly emotionally involved on the point of exactly what to call it" You did not point out what I said that made you think anger. What led you to "emotional"? How did you come to the conclusion that I was somehow angry for pointing out that the show has been advertised as comedy? The entire point of this thread was "comedienne does unfunny stand up special." Pointing out that it is indeed thought of and presented as a comedy special is pertinent to that point. That you do not consider it comedy per se is also pertinent to that point. My only point has been that the advertisement of the show has been of stand up comedy (assuming you're unconcerned about my side note on iliza). Perhaps you are projecting emotion onto me? Kinda like how you completely made up "facts" about it being a one off event?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 09:29:26 I don’t think it should come as a surprise that seb does not understand how stand up works and the countless of shows that lead to a ”special”. The special is the last show of many, honed to perfection and filmed to be sold on ppv.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 09:34:33 Nim: "Well if you would use half your brain you would realize that the hype of the show and the show itself are not the same thing." I'm sorry, but how does that address my point, and I don't at this point care about how you yourself received it, but when you say "most of my criticism has been regarding the reception" - how is it you think that you can possibly say "it shouldn't be received this way/ it should be received this other way" without making a judgement on the show itself and the kind of "objective" reception it should have? How would you demonstrate or assert that the Hype of the show was not proportionate to its merit without making a judgement on the merit of the show itself, and then saying the reception is out of proportion with what the show merits?
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 09:38:42 Hood: I stand corrected, I had thought it was a one off. I don't think that really detracts from the central point though, do you? Other comedy specials have been commissioned by netflix, so I assumed it would have been them. In this case they have evidently acquired streaming rights after the fact. It will then be the production company and whoever managed the tour who would have controlled marketing. Stand up comedians do not have anything like the money to self finance. So, as I say: 1. I wouldn't call it comedy. 2. The artist is pretty clear she doesn't think of it as comedy, or at least not conventionally so. 3. Who cares what the marketing company or netflix (who are the ones that call it a comedy special) call it? Neither are relevant to point 1 or point 2, which is what you are griping about.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 09:39:41 Nim: And remind me, you are the one that thinks stand up comedians control marketing decisions for worldwide streaming rights, and comedy tours?
hood Member	Mon Jul 30 09:45:09 So you agree with the point of the thread. A comedy tour/special is being portrayed as comedy, but isn't.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 09:48:59 ”I'm sorry, but how does that address my point” I am sorry you feel that way. It has already been explained in this thread. Nothing new under the sun, reviewed in media as the discovery of a new sun. This objectivly not true. >>it shouldn't be received this way/ it should be received this other way" without making a judgement on the show itself and the kind of "objective" reception it should have?<< What the fuck does this even mean? Are you having a stroke? I have given my opinion on the show itself, which is different from what other individuals (namely the author of OP article) think. It is conceivable that a positive review could have been written by people who enjoyed it without the watershed moment hype? Does your imagination stretch that far?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 10:07:52 >>How would you demonstrate or assert that the Hype of the show was not proportionate to its merit without making a judgement on the merit of the show itself, and then saying the reception is out of proportion with what the show merits?<< It all takes place inside my mind. Someone tells me you should eat this pizza it the BEST pizza ever. I eat it and reach a subjective decision, this was not the best pizza ever. I read a movie review, awesome movie Tarantinos best, I disagree. I watch the special, whatershed moment, end of comedy bla bla. I disagree, nowhere near that level of novelty, but then again I have been consuming stand up for 20 years or so. It gets worse when she in interviews denounces it as a stand up all together, so then what the fuck is this hype over it being some grand moment in stand up even about? Basically a woman talking about her traumatic story (not the first time on a stage) *remember from my first post, this confused the shit out of you* You know how many rappers hyped up their new album release as ”the death of hiphop”? Do you still have problems placing my opinion about the over hyped reviews in a place in your mind that makes sense?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 10:53:33 I think the title of this article sums it up for me. NANETTE” AND WHY A NEW WAVE OF COMEDIANS DON’T WANT TO BE FUNNY http://qua...medians-dont-want-to-be-funny/ Up next pop singers who don't want to be popular and an up and coming rapper who rather play the cello. This is the type of absurdity that is needed to give the jaded masses consuming social media a sense of novelty. Hey everyone lets put our pants on backwards and be all crazy and creative! The media coverage is largely driven by the feminism click bait narrative, that women should go where men are and redo everything to their liking. Nothing new, just your typical female behavior, all the way down to redecorating your house. The backside is that they will always live in the shadow of the men who came before them and built it it all, instead of actually breaking free and making something of their own. No no I want to do what the men do, but completely different! Women, can't live with them. The end -Al Bundy
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 11:49:15 Hood: I'll agree it's probably not what you expected. I think the audience were pleased. She got a standing ovation and critical acclaim. I would not say it's beyond what someone can call comedy withput being accused of mis-selling. But if you are saying it's a travesty such things can be described or sold as comedy, I think you need a sense of proportion. I'd say Daniel Kitson's later work is more theatre than stand up and deviates far more. Nim: If that's your point "it's not *that* original", little ever is, and it's still fairly exceptional, and as a criticism that's fairly pedantic and also ignores the extent such work is new to *them* in terms of form and substance. You seemed to be suggesting initially something was fake. The response or the material? I took you to mean the response was inauthentic. Other people's response doesn't take place in your mind. So in judging *other* peoples response, and whether that response is reasonable or not, requires a view on how they should judge the material and putting yourself in their minds. That seems inescapable to me.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 12:15:36 >>You seemed to be suggesting initially something was fake. The response or the material?<< The response, I have no reason to doubt her material and what happened to her. Click bait euphoric hype is not genuine, no. Either as you say, these people are ignorant about stand up history or it is your usual click bait factory production, many masters contribute to creating such things. Initial reaction, this is too much to be genuine, fake. >>That seems inescapable to me.<< It usually turns out this way, when someone is blocked by cognitive dissonance. Yes seb, I have a different opinion about things than you do. Which you have now construed into some ominous "judgement" of *other* people. We all judge based on our own ideas, reasoning and experience. You judge me all the time and I judge you and your words all the time. We disagree. If there is a point you are trying to make, is has escaped me. >>requires a view on how they should judge the material and putting yourself in their minds.<< They should get out of their bubble and see the world, novelty wears off after a while. Experiences, less is more etc. and so on. If you look at the other articles of the author, you see that she is living inside the SJW/feminist bubble. Is there any point to all of this? Everyone is still free to go on stage and say anything they want in my world and audiences free to pay and listen. I will not write an angry letter to Netflix like lulzgul did over Ansari, because I am a better and bigger man than you :)
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 13:14:55 Nim: I know a number of people who describe it as life changing (which is why I ended up watching it). While there was nothing new in there, I'd say it was electrifying, stays with you, and by far and a way the best example of that kind of thing I've seen. So, again, I think if you are saying the hype isn't genuine, your projecting (at least in part) your assessment of the material to someone else. The fact you can't conceive that me pointing out that you cannot possibly have the insights into others mind to know if their response is genuine is somehow me making assumptions about your inner thoughts betrays a deep layer of solipsism. Sure, you can have the opinion that others might be disingenuous in their response but it seems pretty baseless. And it's never going to speak to you or me in the same way it would speak to many women who have endured sexism and slights day in and day out. The thing is, that bubble is real, getting to live outside it, free from the myriad of ways it disadvantages others - that's what's meant by privilege. I don't really believe you've ever really tried to notice or experience that. You just try to explain it away.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 13:58:39 >>So, again, I think if you are saying the hype isn't genuine, your projecting (at least in part) your assessment of the material to someone else<< Yes I think my assessment is more factual and based on listening to many many many comedians on and off stage. >>The fact you can't conceive that me pointing out that you cannot possibly have the insights into others mind to know if their response is genuine is somehow me making assumptions about your inner thoughts betrays a deep<< ”Click bait euphoric hype is not genuine, no. Either as you say, these people are ignorant about stand up history or it is your usual click bait factory production, many masters contribute to creating such things. Initial reaction, this is too much to be genuine, fake.” Your reading comprehension and ability to follow a conversation betrays an inner dumbass in you. >>And it's never going to speak to you or me in the same way it would speak to many women who have endured sexism and slights day in and day out<< Speak for yourself, not for me thanks. I am very capable empathy and listening to people and their stories. The only part I do not disparage is her anger against what was done to her. I very much ”feel” it and get it. It deserves to be heard, the fact that it is undeserving of this hype and not ground breaking should not detract from it. Even though massive hype has killed entire franchises when they failed to deliver, just as a note on how hype can ruin. Listen if this was the first time for you enduring someone explaining how they got raped, I feel for you and your privilege, I really do, but that is your bubble, not mine. >>I don't really believe you've ever really tried to notice or experience that.<< What was it you said about having insights into other peoples minds? You seem to have insights into my entire life lol :) Is it because I don’t know any women? Because we have not discussed sexual offence statistics? What is it that makes you think these stupid thoughts? Your shitty memory and the fact that you did not reason your way into these issues. You watched 1 comedy special or read 1 article and as if in a deep slumber, you suddenly Woke© up.
hood Member	Mon Jul 30 15:20:13 "But if you are saying it's a travesty such things can be described or sold as comedy, I think you need a sense of proportion." Where did I ever say this?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 30 16:01:41 Have you ever gotten a satisfying answer as to where all the things seb fabricates come from? My bet is that you said it, when you didn't say it was "electrifying". I am sure you have seen it elsewhere. If you have a nuanced view on something that is part of the meta narrative, the sebs come out of the woodwork to let you know. This behavior has literally _no_ limits and lack of knowledge is not an obstacle. I recently on twitter watched an Afghani Swedish principle who works in one of Swedens problem areas and also runs a school in Afghanistan give a nuanced view on life in Afghanistan. The country is a hot button issue here with 7000 young men acting as pawns in a political fuckery, most of whome lied about their age as it has turned out. Amnesty, deportation what to do?? The Afghani principle had the audacity to provide a nuanced view on Afghanistan _on the ground_ that did not include describing the country as Mordor/hell on earth. That was enough for a dozen leftwing trolls WHO LIVE IN SWEDEN AND HAVE NEVER BEEN TO AFGHANISTAN to start questioning his motives and knowledge about the country, see they had friends with different stories. That is literally it. I am charitable in my interpretation even with seb, even after all this time. It comes from a good and well meaning place. But it gets impossibly frustrating trying to talk with people like that, who read between the lines to find the least charitable and most suspect version of what you are saying. You can't think freely or out loud, you can't have an open and honest conversation. It is an uphill battle you will forfeit because you have better things to do, like masturbating.
hood Member	Mon Jul 30 16:44:31 "It is an uphill battle you will forfeit because you have better things to do, like masturbating." You quit in the middle? Heathen.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 17:14:27 hood: "Where did I ever say this?" "But *if* you are saying" [Emphasis added]. Yes, it's speculation - not a direct attribution. But that is because: 1. You asked me if I agreed with "the point of the thread", the tone of which is generally very much hostile, so you are being a bit unrealistic demanding I restrict "the point of the thread" to simply your position. 2. once again, with your tedious semantic detours, we find yourself in a position where you don't appear to have a point. Fact: responding to a thread title that says "here is comedy Seb would approve of" I say "I wouldn't call it comedy" and also point out to you that actually, the performer seems distinctly ambiguous that it's a comedy. Umpteen posts of you trying to somehow disprove these two things on the grounds it has been marketed as a comedy, despite both being, well, clear factual statements with supporting evidence which are not at all undermined by the fact that the producers and broadcasters may market it differently. Finally culminating in you demanding to know if I agree with "the point of the thread", the gist of the thread being "WAaa, SJW, not Comedy! Bad!" If I were to sum it up, and then you going "Where did I say that?" Get a grip hood.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 30 17:20:08 Nim: Ah. I see. It is your opinion that your opinion is more objective, and that therefore other people must be dishonest in their opinions. Unfortunately, it is my opinion that you are less objective, and that therefore by symmetry your opinion that your opinion is more factual is clearly fake. QED. I thought you had said the silliest thing possible, but you managed to top it. Bravo. "I am very capable empathy and listening to people and their stories" Everything you have said here on the subject suggests you are overestimating your ability to do so. Not least if I can find people who this very strongly resonates with, and you say "oh, this reaction is fake, it makes no sense to me", it tends to suggests no, you are not able to empathise with such people at all! Also, if you think it was just about the rape, you are badly, badly missing the point.
hood Member	Mon Jul 30 18:34:03 "You asked me if I agreed with "the point of the thread", the tone of which is generally very much hostile, so you are being a bit unrealistic demanding I restrict "the point of the thread" to simply your position." The tone of the thread is indeed hostile. However there are 2 points to that hostility: 1. this was billed as comedy 2. this was not very funny. One can agree with the point and disagree with tone. You clearly disagree with tone and I was never arguing tone. So by getting to state where we have established that you agree with me on the point (without the context of tone, for which I've been pretty removed from and stated as such in questioning your assertion of anger), we don't need to argue anymore. We agree, this act was billed as comedy and we agree that it seemed to be less about comedy (seemed on my end since I haven't seen it and in your opinion confirmed). "once again, with your tedious semantic detours, we find yourself in a position where you don't appear to have a point." ??? I do have a point. I've made my point. My point is that just about the entire promotion of this act was under the banner of comedy. It is not semantics, it is central to what Rugian was saying. He presented the following: 1. this special is being billed as a comedy special. 2. it was not comedy. 3. people are claiming it is great comedy despite it not being comedy. 4. he thinks this is utter bullshit. I am explicitly agreeing with point 1 and accepting the generalization of point 2 (since I haven't seen it). I shared a side note relating to point 2 and my disappointment in my experience with it (Iliza Shlesinger - Elder Millenial). "Finally culminating in you demanding to know" Demanding? I didn't even ask a fucking question. I asserted. I stated. I made a claim. I did not ask for your input, I spoke at you. I will chalk this up to colorful exaggeration and not a wild inability to understand language.
hood Member	Mon Jul 30 18:36:36 To expound... If we look at Rugian and the 4 points I lined out, removing point 1 and reinterpreting, do you really think there'd be much of a stink if it was just Hannah Gadsby holding town halls with thousands of people listening to her explain her perspective? It might elicit a facepalm or an oy vey, but not repudiation. There'd be no comments about how it isn't even comedy. So, yes, that the act was presented as comedy is extremely pertinent; it is not a semantic detour. It's literally the fuel for the ire.
obaminated Member	Mon Jul 30 22:13:13 Does she really tell no jokes and just preaches her beliefs? If so then that is a problem. I was somewhat detained this weekend and missed out on this fun thread. So I'll just say what I am sure someone else has already mentioned, comedians like Carlin, Chapelle, Burr etc are/were able to promote their social beliefs while still being funny. I mean, that is why comedy is so effective in debates. If you can make an opposing position seem absurd, you are influencing the beliefs of your audience and promoting your politics. To pretend like comedy is just fart and dick jokes is completely ignoring what great comedians did and why it made them great.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 31 02:37:10 >>Ah. I see. It is your opinion that your opinion is more objective, and that therefore other people must be dishonest in their opinions.<< Then You obviously do not understand the "attention economy" you claim to be worried about, if you think individual actors need to be "dishonest" for fakeness to emerge. "Unfortunately, it is my opinion" Assessment was the word *you* introduced. Would be closer to an expert opinion, which I can sign under on stand up comedy relative to you and the author. Your laymen opinion ranks lower. "Everything you have said here on the subject suggests you are overestimating your ability to do so." I'm sorry you feel that way, if it is any consolation, I think you are overestimating your ability to build models of the other posters on this board. We all have space to grow. >>"oh, this reaction is fake, it makes no sense to me", it tends to suggests no, you are not able to empathise with such people at all!<< Your inability to control your emotions suggest to me that you can not be trusted to think clearly on sensitive issues. I understand that from your POV I may seem cold and insensitive, but it is mostly in your head and lost in the digital medium. But I can experience the full range of human experience, I can empathize, I can criticize and then go have breakfast. >>Also, if you think it was just about the rape, you are badly, badly missing the point.<< Seems like way too late to get bothered by this for someone who has watched it. The rape story was arguably the most powerful part and ends the show more or less, so I will keep using it as the summary for the parts of the show that "electrified".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 31 02:45:57 "if it was just Hannah Gadsby holding town halls with thousands of people listening to her explain her perspective?" ^This. This is happening in auditoriums and stages of different magnitude all the time. So the big earth shattering thing was that for the first time(?) it happened in a stand up, that has now been revised by the comedian to not be comedy at all. So back to my OP. WTF is all of this even about? It is to some degree (which can not be ignored) about marketing and tapping into a new (predominantly female) audience who do not watch stand up, by not doing stand up.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 31 03:00:56 “Because do you understand what self-deprecation means when it comes from somebody who already exists in the margins? It’s not humility. It’s humiliation.” This is part of my disagreement with her premise, her worldview. I do not accept this, I accept that she and other may think this way for whatever reason, but this is diametrically opposite to how I view comedy and self-deprecating humor. It does explain the complete lack of humor among SJW. You do not have to be defined by the horrors that befall you, it may not be easy, it may take time, but it up to you. She not only defines herself through her trauma, she thinks the medium she chose to initially express herself in, is by men for men, dead and humiliating. Compounded by her whining about, in her opinion, mediocre men having more success that her. Probably because herr opinion about what is and isn't mediocrity in comedy is invalid. The mediocre man, angry at women taking his power myth is a pillar of modern feminism.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 31 03:11:58 Hood: Jesus Christ hood. You've spent how many posts and words bitterly quibbling with me to establish something I said quote clearly in my first sentence. You really need to get a life.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 31 03:13:02 Obaminated: She tells jokes. But the point of the piece is more to get people to think, not instinctively laugh.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 31 03:14:18 Nim: I see, you consider yourself an expert on comedy. You certainly are a funny fellow, but more the punchline than author.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 31 03:22:01 ^lol Hilarious that you are so fucking confused. You clearly state this is not comedy seb, you call it polemic. People have now explained to you what stand up comedy is and how it has been marketed as that, won prizes in that category. Quick summary seb it is not comedy but it is great watch it. Hood but she called it a comedy, it isn't comedy seb if you had seen it you would be saying that (ehm lulz the fuck?) YES LITERALLY, he says it isn't comedy, and then says if you had watched it you wouldn't say that (it isn't a comedy) If you did not reason your way in, you can not reason your way out, you will only dig a deeper hole. End of thread.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 31 03:28:16 "I see, you consider yourself an expert on comedy. You certainly are a funny fellow, but more the punchline than author." I consider myself and expert on what would constitute ground breaking new comedy and certainly what isn't comedy at all, specially because I can read the entertainer saying it isn't comedy. I can also comfirm that you also say this isn't comedy. Hence it could not possibly be a new and groundbreaking comedy. My expertise relies certainly on my 20 years of watching stand up, but over 90% of the my knowledge on this assessment comes from reading comprehension and not getting sucked in and remain sober even when the topic is sensitive in nature. You understand right? Since it isn't comedy and we all agree it isn't comedy, it can not by definition by this crazy new creative comedy. And this is why you are an idiot. TADAAAA!
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Jul 31 03:30:39 You want comedy, go check out some of the classic comedians. Especially, Red Skelton, he was the greatest.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 31 03:48:57 "A polemic (/pəˈlɛmɪk/) is contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position. Polemics are mostly seen in arguments about controversial topics. The practice of such argumentation is called polemics. A person who often writes polemics, or who speaks polemically, is called a polemicist.[1] The word is derived from Greek πολεμικός (polemikos), meaning 'warlike, hostile',[1][2] from πόλεμος (polemos), meaning 'war'." Presumably seb understands the meaning of all the words he is using, what with a PhD and english being his first language. So assuming seb understands "polemic", where in the process of the polemic, does seb get confused over the oppositions retort? He even went as far as to say "in the classical sense". Seb we are not all like you, some us refuse (can't) to surrender our brains and ability to think independently just because someone bases their polemic on traumatic story. Many of us have the ability to separate the issues, be empathetic towards the person and listen to their story and still disagree with the conclusions.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 31 04:31:57 Nim: I said *I* wouldn't call it comedy - as in I think people sitting down expecting some light entertainment are going to be as upset as someone approaching, say, Swift's Modest Proposal to have them rolling in the aisles. That is not the same as saying that other people wouldn't consider it comedy, that it couldn't be marketed as such, and win awards. I am not aware of an ISO standard for comedy. "She did, though. Called it a comedy special." Only, she didn't. And if Hood has watched it, with about a good two thirds of the show with the performer saying "this isn't comedy", he might not be saying "she called it comedy!" Hood then went on to spend a good many posts attempting to prove that because it was marketed as such, that proves she described it as comedy. Classic Hood idiocy - as it appears that Hood actually agrees with me - it's probably not what people would expect from a stand up comedy show. "YES LITERALLY, he says it isn't comedy, and then says if you had watched it you wouldn't say that (it isn't a comedy)" Reading comprehension fail. I said Hood wouldn't say that she called it comedy. It's a three sentence exchange, how can you be confused on this point. And how can you claim superior reading comprehension. Finally, so you are saying that your "expertise" in Comedy means you are able to assess whether the general reaction of others to something which, we all agree is't comedy, is authentic. I see... and does your "expertise" in Comedy also then qualify you to judge whether, say, the nobel prise committee was correct in last years award for Physics, physics also being something we agree is "not comedy"?
Seb Member	Tue Jul 31 04:34:34 Which part of Polemic here do you think does not apply?
Seb Member	Tue Jul 31 05:18:11 At best, right now, you sound a little like the kind of person who gets upset that a chef wins a prize for cooking a paella that gets rave reviews from people who actually eat it, but contains chorizo which makes it inauthentic.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 31 05:32:04 And hood tried to explain how irrelevant that is since the entertainer has no issues riding the comedy wave of her this is not comedy show, accepting awards and giving interviews that describe this as comedy or stand up accompanied by how earth shattering, comedy destroying etc. etc. Disingenuous and fake. >>and does your "expertise" in Comedy also then qualify you to judge whether, say, the nobel prise committee was correct in last years award for Physics, physics also being something we agree is "not comedy"?<< The ability to tell what something is not, does not require the ability to navigate that which it isn't. Basic logic, very confusing. >>Which part of Polemic here do you think does not apply?<< Ah finally :) this is a good time to bring up the challenge again. Since you have such insights into my life and seem to trust you model of me as a person, please summarize to the best of your ability, what you think I would object to, some hints have already been given in this thread. I will grade your summary on a scale 1-10 with 10 being the essence of my character and 1 that you likely suffer from some cognitive disability. The floor is yours.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 31 05:34:38 That last post, if it is any indication of your ability to assess other people, their thoughts and motivations, was not a great start. But please go on.
Rugian Member	Tue Jul 31 05:44:15 How did you autists manage to spend 90 posts on this shit? It's not a comedy, it was widely billed as a comedy, and the reception it received as a comedy is likely to have an impact on the industry. What Seb personally thinks it is is absolutely irrelevant, because the average person doesn't make decisions based on what Sebastian McFuckpants in Nottinghamshire-upon-Tweedimbum thinks. Enough.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 31 06:28:11 Nim: "since the entertainer has no issues riding the comedy wave" How is that relevant? I said "I wouldn't describe it as comedy" he says "Muh, but she did", I point out she is quite open in interviews and the show itself as saying it isn't comedy. You are welcome to call her a hypocrite if you like. "The ability to tell what something is not, does not require the ability to navigate that which it isn't. Basic logic, very confusing." Hold on though, you are saying that the general response was inauthentic. Are you seriously trying to argue that because people are responding to it - the thing itself whatever label you apply to it - in a way that you would deem incorrect for for things you consider to be comedy, they are responding to it "wrong"? I find that hilarious. "Ok, sure - the judges are wrong - it may taste wonderful but goddamit it's not paella. I've been eating Paella for 20 years and everyone knows paella doesn't have Chorizo, so this is a shitty, shitty Paella. And if the diners say it is a great dish their tastebuds and reactions are inauthentic." "Please summarize to the best of your ability, what you think I would object to" Why is your personal views on what is objetionable in any way, shape, or form relevant as to whether the term polemic could apply as an adequate description of Nanette? You are the one trying to claim this is an unreasonable description of the damned thing - you make the case as to why that doesn't fit.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 31 06:38:34 Rugian: You titled your post "Comedy Seb would approve of". I clarified I wouldn't call it comedy. Rugian, if you don't want my opinion, there is a fairly simple and obvious way to limit the likelihood you will get it. "he reception it received as a comedy is likely to have an impact on the industry" I am terribly sorry that the womenfolk are once again defiling something you love with their dastardly, womanly hands. It is impossible to imagine that this will do anything other than displace all other comedy content, rather than define a new market segment. Demand for comedy being fixed.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 31 06:47:51 >>How is that relevant?<< Indeed, how is it relevant to authenticity to say one thing and do something else. I will have to get back to you on that one.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 31 07:01:04 Nim: I thought it was the people receiving the work you were saying are inauthentic? Now it's Gasby. And there is a difference between slotting something that doesn't easily fit into the category of comedy (and I really think you need to take this up with the comedy award judges more than anyone) - i.e. it isn't authentically comedy; and the pieces content or the author herself being inauthentic. The paella may not be authentically paella, but many people authentically find the thing, whatever it is, to be delicious. And this is not undermined by the offending presence of chorizo which makes it inauthentic as paella.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 31 07:01:38 At times, this conversation feels like describing quantum physics to a duck.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 31 07:02:02 Albeit a duck with 20 years of experience sitting in quantum physics lectures.
	show deleted posts