He flip flops a bit on his position, but he moans about comedians being cancelled and at least starts by saying you couldn't publish this book in the UK today, and I'm afraid I just don't think...
He flip flops a bit on his position, but he moans about comedians being cancelled and at least starts by saying you couldn't publish this book in the UK today, and I'm afraid I just don't think that's true. Where's he getting that? I'm not even sure who he thinks this book would offend?
Like comedians complaining they're cancelled during their Netflix special it just seems to me that this spectre of cancellation exists mostly in people's heads. The god damn us president is on record boasting about how fame allows you to go round grabbing lasses by the pussy.
Major vibes of "is this cancellation in the room with us right now"?
Seriously. I am so very sick of people whining about "cancel culture". The author "can't prove it" because their nebulous fear of cancel culture having any tangible effect is based entirely on...
Seriously.
The good news is that I don’t think that the illiberalism of identity politics will endure much longer. Especially when it comes to the literal policing of humour - and cancellation of comedians for telling the wrong kinds of jokes.
But that doesn’t mean we aren’t still dealing with the repercussions. I can’t prove it, but I have a strong sense that there has been a nervousness about humour in the publishing industry for quite a few years.
I am so very sick of people whining about "cancel culture". The author "can't prove it" because their nebulous fear of cancel culture having any tangible effect is based entirely on right-wing FUD, and not reality.
What comedians have actually been cancelled because of the offensive jokes they make? Louis CK is the only comedian I know of who has actually been "cancelled", but it wasn't because of any jokes he made, it was because he was a sexual predator. But despite his incredibly transphobic jokes, Dave Chappelle is still making specials. Ricky Gervais, who also regularly makes transphobic jokes (he literally ripped off 4chan and made an "I identify as a attack helicopter chimpazee" joke in his last special), is still producing shows, putting out specials, and even hosted the fucking Golden Globes in 2020. Joe Rogan, despite his countless ignorant/bigoted/dangerous views still has the most popular podcast in the world.
The only thing that has actually happened to any of the comedians who probably should have been cancelled for their views is that now they all constantly complain about cancel culture... despite none of them facing any career repercussions for their bigoted jokes.
And don't even get me started on the author's complaints about "identity politics". As NK Jemisin famously said during her Hugo awards acceptance speech, "When they win it's meritocracy but when we win it's identity politics."
Agreed. Also, what is humor is apparently a bit like fashion. There are cycles of it. There are times when comedians like Andrew Dice Clay and Sam Kinison are popular, and times when they aren't....
Agreed.
Also, what is humor is apparently a bit like fashion. There are cycles of it.
There are times when comedians like Andrew Dice Clay and Sam Kinison are popular, and times when they aren't. People change, context changes, and that's just how things are. As far as I know, a dress designer doesn't scream at the world because they can't sell the same design in 2025 that they sold in 2020. But maybe they can sell something in 2025 that was designed in 1990.
When something cultural becomes very popular, there is always a backlash to it and then the opposite becomes popular, then the cycle continues. Sometimes there is a "genius" that creates something completely different, but usually old stuff is just repackaged.
And within every cycle, there is a certain audience for the "retro" thing, whether it is enjoying some "forbidden" humor or wearing some outdated clothing. The reason may be to rebel or to be ironic.
But a humorist complaining about cancel culture because they lost some popularity is the same as admitting that they can't come up with new material or that everyone owes them attention because they used to be more successful.
FYI, Joe Rogan actually is a stand-up comedian, used to do pretty big tours (before COVID), and still regularly performs at comedy clubs in Austin. However, he is far more on the "angry political...
FYI, Joe Rogan actually is a stand-up comedian, used to do pretty big tours (before COVID), and still regularly performs at comedy clubs in Austin. However, he is far more on the "angry political ranter" side of stand-up comedy than the observational, storytelling, or absurd humor side... which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I actually do enjoy political rant style comedy and so am a huge fan of George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Doug Standhope, Jon Stewart, Lewis Black, Janeane Garofalo, David Cross, Margaret Cho, Colin Quinn, and even Dennis Miller and Bill Maher (before they both went over the deep end). Despite disagreeing with the political views of several of them (esp Doug Stanhope who is a self-described "anarchist" AKA ultra-libertarian) they are all still hilarious to me. But Joe Rogan is not, and he is also just so fucking ignorant and gets so worked up over total strawmen that his rants are merely eyeroll inducing rather than poignant, thought provoking, or darkly amusing like the other aforementioned political comedians usually are/were.
p.s. And for the record, Stanhope is easily my favorite of the bunch despite him being on the polar opposite end of the political spectrum to myself. I love that dude. IMHO, he is a true comedic genius, and a genuinely thoughtful, kind, compassionate guy. So even comedians with wildly different political views than my own, that I fundamentally disagree with on a deep-seated level, truly don't bother me so long as they're not willfully ignorant and/or hateful like Rogan is, and Chappelle has unfortunately become too.
Joe Rogan actually does have a bunch of specials he recorded for Netflix... one of which is called "Triggered" which should tell you pretty much everything you need to know about his type of...
Joe Rogan actually does have a bunch of specials he recorded for Netflix... one of which is called "Triggered" which should tell you pretty much everything you need to know about his type of comedy. ;)
Joe Rogan has been a standup comedian for longer than all of the other things he's known for, and as much as I don't care for the guy nor think he's a good standup, he's definitely a comedian. Got...
Joe Rogan has been a standup comedian for longer than all of the other things he's known for, and as much as I don't care for the guy nor think he's a good standup, he's definitely a comedian.
Got his start in Boston in the 80s doing the standup circuit, got a national TV spot doing standup, then came TV roles and Fear Factor. He's had 25 years of recorded comedy specials at this point, sells out arenas for his standup, has several Netflix and Comedy Central specials. Hell, in the early days of his podcast he was doing it in green rooms of places he was doing standup gigs at. If I'm not mistaken, one of his early studios was a room in the Ice House comedy club.
Obviously he's way more well known for the modern form of the podcast, and Fear Factor, and the UFC, and even NewsRadio, but it's funny calling him not a comedian when he's been doing that for longer than all of those, and quite successfully, even before the success of his other ventures.
I have indeed watched multiple stand-up specials by Joe Rogan. He is actually funny even if have no admiration for him or his ideologies. His specials are not politically charged.
I suppose also in the modern world, being a big successful comedian means international touring and having streaming specials. I don't think I've ever heard of people going to a Rogan show, or watching a proper 'set' that he's recorded.
I have indeed watched multiple stand-up specials by Joe Rogan. He is actually funny even if have no admiration for him or his ideologies. His specials are not politically charged.
Within the context of the article, it is literal. https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2022/aug/14/jerry-sadowitz-edinburgh-fringe-show-cancelled-over-extreme-racism-homophobia-and-misogyny My simple...
My simple response is not all speech deserves a platform. I'm actually reminded mightily of this Angela Collier video https://youtu.be/DM5qBRwU5EU . She discusses Bill Nye debating evolution vs creationism and how he was in the wrong to even dignify them with a platform.
Her basic point was that, some ideas are so wrong that trying to discuss them as a good faith actor is impossible, and all it does it makes it seems like there's any debate to be had at all.
I feel similarly about racism, misogyny (notably the author of this piece strikes me as a misogynist) etc etc. Just shut up.
I wasn't trying to address any complicated social or political issues. My comment was concerned with semantics first and foremost. I don't personally believe the word "cancellation" has a literal...
I wasn't trying to address any complicated social or political issues. My comment was concerned with semantics first and foremost.
I don't personally believe the word "cancellation" has a literal stable meaning one can safely employ. It is a very fluid word. Even a meaning for "cancellation" that is qualified as literall still mostly reflects the subjectivity of groups and individuals. Additionally, the same person will use the term with different meanings at different times depending on their sympathies and allegiances.
In any case, I am answering to a broader context the comment I am responded to was addressing. That is not necessarily an appraisal of the artice.
Agreed on all fronts and I was just trying to keep the discussion relevant to the text at hand. I only posted this because nobody else had pointed out that, within the context of the article,...
Agreed on all fronts and I was just trying to keep the discussion relevant to the text at hand. I only posted this because nobody else had pointed out that, within the context of the article, cancelled was in fact not used in the Dave Chappelle JK Rowling sense but in the, "my buddy had 1 show cancelled because he's an enormous piece of shit" way.
I used to laugh my head off at those books back in the day. Waaaay back when we didn't realise how good we had it. I think they ended up with enough submissions for at least 3 of them. I don't get...
I used to laugh my head off at those books back in the day. Waaaay back when we didn't realise how good we had it. I think they ended up with enough submissions for at least 3 of them. I don't get the hostile reaction to the article - I thought it was well written and reflective, though I can't say I've ever found much substance to claims of cancellation or identity politics.
The Crap Towns books (and Crap Jobs and Crap Holidays) are equal parts shocking (they used to treat employees like that???), hilarious and surprisingly moving. But although there were plenty of testimonials from people who fucking hated their town/job/holiday, I never got a mean-spirited vibe from it. The Towns series was popular enough for MPs to write in defense of their Towns (or acknowledging their problems), and it felt like a strange coming together. British cultural thing, maybe.
Yeah I'm with you, I don't get the other reactions. It starts with someone else asking him if he could publish Crap Towns today (not him asserting he could not) and I read the rest of the article...
Yeah I'm with you, I don't get the other reactions.
It starts with someone else asking him if he could publish Crap Towns today (not him asserting he could not) and I read the rest of the article as meandering while thinking out loud about the idea. He closes the article this way:
But before closing, I should admit that there is a more straightforward answer to the question of whether you can still get away with doing something like Crap Towns.
That answer is: yes.
... But I also know that I now also just react against the whole thing. It’s been done. It’s grown stale. It doesn’t fit - especially since so much has changed around it. In short, the world has moved on.
And maybe that’s not such a bad thing?
The context changed, particularly the political climate, so it just doesn't land the same. That's not someone complaining they've been cancelled or would be for publishing it.
I agree with him on this and the broader point of the article, but there are some bits I disagree with, especially this line:
There are, after all, only two kinds of joke: those that were once funny and those that were never funny.
That's just not true. There's classic comedian acts that still hit. Sitcoms of bygone generations can still hit. If we go to plays, we can find humor that has aged well over centuries. This sort of take I generally hear from folks with a limited view of humor, generally seeing it as only punching down.
Crap Towns on its face sounds like it punches down, plenty of folks took it that way at the time. But he talks about his own home in there, the cover photo is from his route home. Based on the way he talks about it, I get the impression he wanted to point a finger at these places, have a laugh, but also say "let's do better." And you, actually having read them, are attesting they were moving and not mean spirited.
It's a blog, not a thesis. He's sharing his thoughts, not constructing an essay attacking cancel culture.
That's fair. Though equally, the responses are forum posts and not theses either. The author expressed some thoughts and opinions, and my thoughts and opinions of those are that they hold no water.
That's fair. Though equally, the responses are forum posts and not theses either. The author expressed some thoughts and opinions, and my thoughts and opinions of those are that they hold no water.
Certain acts are evergreen. One in particular is the comedian Brian Regan. He makes a point of being clean and also not being topical. His humor probably never has to change. There are other...
Certain acts are evergreen. One in particular is the comedian Brian Regan. He makes a point of being clean and also not being topical. His humor probably never has to change.
There are other people like Howard Stern and Jimmy Kimmel. They used to get most of their content from being shocking and irreverent. Now they don't but they are still successful because they either changed with the times or reinvented themselves for a different audience. A lot of their humor was specifically "punching down" and the mantle of this has been taken by other people who like to complain about cancel culture (not the author of the article).
He flip flops a bit on his position, but he moans about comedians being cancelled and at least starts by saying you couldn't publish this book in the UK today, and I'm afraid I just don't think that's true. Where's he getting that? I'm not even sure who he thinks this book would offend?
Like comedians complaining they're cancelled during their Netflix special it just seems to me that this spectre of cancellation exists mostly in people's heads. The god damn us president is on record boasting about how fame allows you to go round grabbing lasses by the pussy.
Major vibes of "is this cancellation in the room with us right now"?
Seriously.
I am so very sick of people whining about "cancel culture". The author "can't prove it" because their nebulous fear of cancel culture having any tangible effect is based entirely on right-wing FUD, and not reality.
What comedians have actually been cancelled because of the offensive jokes they make? Louis CK is the only comedian I know of who has actually been "cancelled", but it wasn't because of any jokes he made, it was because he was a sexual predator. But despite his incredibly transphobic jokes, Dave Chappelle is still making specials. Ricky Gervais, who also regularly makes transphobic jokes (he literally ripped off 4chan and made an "I identify as a
attack helicopterchimpazee" joke in his last special), is still producing shows, putting out specials, and even hosted the fucking Golden Globes in 2020. Joe Rogan, despite his countless ignorant/bigoted/dangerous views still has the most popular podcast in the world.The only thing that has actually happened to any of the comedians who probably should have been cancelled for their views is that now they all constantly complain about cancel culture... despite none of them facing any career repercussions for their bigoted jokes.
And don't even get me started on the author's complaints about "identity politics". As NK Jemisin famously said during her Hugo awards acceptance speech, "When they win it's meritocracy but when we win it's identity politics."
Agreed.
Also, what is humor is apparently a bit like fashion. There are cycles of it.
There are times when comedians like Andrew Dice Clay and Sam Kinison are popular, and times when they aren't. People change, context changes, and that's just how things are. As far as I know, a dress designer doesn't scream at the world because they can't sell the same design in 2025 that they sold in 2020. But maybe they can sell something in 2025 that was designed in 1990.
When something cultural becomes very popular, there is always a backlash to it and then the opposite becomes popular, then the cycle continues. Sometimes there is a "genius" that creates something completely different, but usually old stuff is just repackaged.
And within every cycle, there is a certain audience for the "retro" thing, whether it is enjoying some "forbidden" humor or wearing some outdated clothing. The reason may be to rebel or to be ironic.
But a humorist complaining about cancel culture because they lost some popularity is the same as admitting that they can't come up with new material or that everyone owes them attention because they used to be more successful.
FYI, Joe Rogan actually is a stand-up comedian, used to do pretty big tours (before COVID), and still regularly performs at comedy clubs in Austin. However, he is far more on the "angry political ranter" side of stand-up comedy than the observational, storytelling, or absurd humor side... which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I actually do enjoy political rant style comedy and so am a huge fan of George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Doug Standhope, Jon Stewart, Lewis Black, Janeane Garofalo, David Cross, Margaret Cho, Colin Quinn, and even Dennis Miller and Bill Maher (before they both went over the deep end). Despite disagreeing with the political views of several of them (esp Doug Stanhope who is a self-described "anarchist" AKA ultra-libertarian) they are all still hilarious to me. But Joe Rogan is not, and he is also just so fucking ignorant and gets so worked up over total strawmen that his rants are merely eyeroll inducing rather than poignant, thought provoking, or darkly amusing like the other aforementioned political comedians usually are/were.
p.s. And for the record, Stanhope is easily my favorite of the bunch despite him being on the polar opposite end of the political spectrum to myself. I love that dude. IMHO, he is a true comedic genius, and a genuinely thoughtful, kind, compassionate guy. So even comedians with wildly different political views than my own, that I fundamentally disagree with on a deep-seated level, truly don't bother me so long as they're not willfully ignorant and/or hateful like Rogan is, and Chappelle has unfortunately become too.
Joe Rogan actually does have a bunch of specials he recorded for Netflix... one of which is called "Triggered" which should tell you pretty much everything you need to know about his type of comedy. ;)
Joe Rogan has been a standup comedian for longer than all of the other things he's known for, and as much as I don't care for the guy nor think he's a good standup, he's definitely a comedian.
Got his start in Boston in the 80s doing the standup circuit, got a national TV spot doing standup, then came TV roles and Fear Factor. He's had 25 years of recorded comedy specials at this point, sells out arenas for his standup, has several Netflix and Comedy Central specials. Hell, in the early days of his podcast he was doing it in green rooms of places he was doing standup gigs at. If I'm not mistaken, one of his early studios was a room in the Ice House comedy club.
Obviously he's way more well known for the modern form of the podcast, and Fear Factor, and the UFC, and even NewsRadio, but it's funny calling him not a comedian when he's been doing that for longer than all of those, and quite successfully, even before the success of his other ventures.
I have indeed watched multiple stand-up specials by Joe Rogan. He is actually funny even if have no admiration for him or his ideologies. His specials are not politically charged.
"Cancellation" mean very different things to different people. That is probably one reason for the inconsistency you're observing.
Within the context of the article, it is literal. https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2022/aug/14/jerry-sadowitz-edinburgh-fringe-show-cancelled-over-extreme-racism-homophobia-and-misogyny
My simple response is not all speech deserves a platform. I'm actually reminded mightily of this Angela Collier video https://youtu.be/DM5qBRwU5EU . She discusses Bill Nye debating evolution vs creationism and how he was in the wrong to even dignify them with a platform.
Her basic point was that, some ideas are so wrong that trying to discuss them as a good faith actor is impossible, and all it does it makes it seems like there's any debate to be had at all.
I feel similarly about racism, misogyny (notably the author of this piece strikes me as a misogynist) etc etc. Just shut up.
I wasn't trying to address any complicated social or political issues. My comment was concerned with semantics first and foremost.
I don't personally believe the word "cancellation" has a literal stable meaning one can safely employ. It is a very fluid word. Even a meaning for "cancellation" that is qualified as literall still mostly reflects the subjectivity of groups and individuals. Additionally, the same person will use the term with different meanings at different times depending on their sympathies and allegiances.
In any case, I am answering to a broader context the comment I am responded to was addressing. That is not necessarily an appraisal of the artice.
Agreed on all fronts and I was just trying to keep the discussion relevant to the text at hand. I only posted this because nobody else had pointed out that, within the context of the article, cancelled was in fact not used in the Dave Chappelle JK Rowling sense but in the, "my buddy had 1 show cancelled because he's an enormous piece of shit" way.
I used to laugh my head off at those books back in the day. Waaaay back when we didn't realise how good we had it. I think they ended up with enough submissions for at least 3 of them. I don't get the hostile reaction to the article - I thought it was well written and reflective, though I can't say I've ever found much substance to claims of cancellation or identity politics.
The Crap Towns books (and Crap Jobs and Crap Holidays) are equal parts shocking (they used to treat employees like that???), hilarious and surprisingly moving. But although there were plenty of testimonials from people who fucking hated their town/job/holiday, I never got a mean-spirited vibe from it. The Towns series was popular enough for MPs to write in defense of their Towns (or acknowledging their problems), and it felt like a strange coming together. British cultural thing, maybe.
...
"Hull has turned a corner."
Yeah I'm with you, I don't get the other reactions.
It starts with someone else asking him if he could publish Crap Towns today (not him asserting he could not) and I read the rest of the article as meandering while thinking out loud about the idea. He closes the article this way:
The context changed, particularly the political climate, so it just doesn't land the same. That's not someone complaining they've been cancelled or would be for publishing it.
I agree with him on this and the broader point of the article, but there are some bits I disagree with, especially this line:
That's just not true. There's classic comedian acts that still hit. Sitcoms of bygone generations can still hit. If we go to plays, we can find humor that has aged well over centuries. This sort of take I generally hear from folks with a limited view of humor, generally seeing it as only punching down.
Crap Towns on its face sounds like it punches down, plenty of folks took it that way at the time. But he talks about his own home in there, the cover photo is from his route home. Based on the way he talks about it, I get the impression he wanted to point a finger at these places, have a laugh, but also say "let's do better." And you, actually having read them, are attesting they were moving and not mean spirited.
It's a blog, not a thesis. He's sharing his thoughts, not constructing an essay attacking cancel culture.
That's fair. Though equally, the responses are forum posts and not theses either. The author expressed some thoughts and opinions, and my thoughts and opinions of those are that they hold no water.
Certain acts are evergreen. One in particular is the comedian Brian Regan. He makes a point of being clean and also not being topical. His humor probably never has to change.
There are other people like Howard Stern and Jimmy Kimmel. They used to get most of their content from being shocking and irreverent. Now they don't but they are still successful because they either changed with the times or reinvented themselves for a different audience. A lot of their humor was specifically "punching down" and the mantle of this has been taken by other people who like to complain about cancel culture (not the author of the article).
From the blog: