This reminds me of the "jokes on them I was only pretending" meme. I personally never got into Louis CK for exactly the reasons the author pointed out - it seemed so obviously transparent to me...
This reminds me of the "jokes on them I was only pretending" meme. I personally never got into Louis CK for exactly the reasons the author pointed out - it seemed so obviously transparent to me from the get go that if all of his comedy was about being a misogynistic jerk, that's probably because he sees the world through misogynistic jerk glasses.
Obviously this won't always be the case, comedian or not, but to me it feels pretty darn obvious when someone is pretending. When they're not pretending the jokes tend to be a little bit more subtle, or perhaps worded in a way that's a bit less offensive. If a joke is too blunt, too racist, too sexist, or otherwise too loud in its telling, it's extremely rare that the person telling the joke doesn't harbor at the very least secret feelings on the subject of the joke - a lack of awareness of the audience and how they might perceive a joke that's potentially offensive is a clear indicator of this.
I've lately come around to the idea that we're kind of fed a lie by our culture that people have a "core" or "true" self that exists independently of how they actually behave. People insist that...
I've lately come around to the idea that we're kind of fed a lie by our culture that people have a "core" or "true" self that exists independently of how they actually behave. People insist that despite the bad things someone does, they are good people "in their hearts" so we shouldn't judge them too harshly.
It seems self-serving. The "he's a good kid, don't ruin his life over one mistake" (the 'mistake' being anything from actual sexual assault, drunk driving, or whatever other criminal or reckless behavior) only ever gets used to help already privileged people get away with behaving thoughtlessly, irresponsibly, or even downright abusively in extreme cases like Louis CK's.
In truth, there is no "true" self. It is what we do and how we treat each other that defines us. Even if you're a good person "on the inside," what does that matter for the rest of us? You need to act like a good person if you expect society to confer the benefits of being a good person on you.
Culturally we've kind of moved away from the concept of "honor" as a way of deciding who we hold in esteem. We resort to "success" instead--which we measure using proxies like fame and wealth--which doesn't work as well. No sense of honor means no sense of dishonor, and I worry that shame/dishonor was the only thing that ever kept powerful men in check.
While I agree with you on a personal level, we can't hold a comedians/artists act against them until they start acting out like Louis CK has. There are plenty of successful comedians who are/were...
While I agree with you on a personal level, we can't hold a comedians/artists act against them until they start acting out like Louis CK has. There are plenty of successful comedians who are/were good people who could actually pull off the reduction to absurdity bit. I'm not saying anyone has to enjoy this type of comedy but there absolutely should be room for them if that's the type of act they want to do. That being said, I've seen people still defending people like Louis CK, which is insane. I agree that outside of the arts, there is no difference between someones "true self" and their public persona. The dude has shown multiple times now his "true self" sucks and while he has the right to make the recent jokes he did, he absolutely deserves the backlash he's getting for it.
On a whole, I agree that we have our core selves which are reflected in our actions. However, when you said I think it is absolutely important to take into consideration the age of the person when...
On a whole, I agree that we have our core selves which are reflected in our actions.
However, when you said
"he's a good kid, don't ruin his life over one mistake"
I think it is absolutely important to take into consideration the age of the person when an act is committed.
Think back to how you were, and how you acted, when you were younger. I absolutely did a bunch of dumb, fucked up, and straight up malicious shit even into my teenage years.
I also know plenty of people who have changed drastically even in their late 20s, because they finally moved out of a destructive environment or moved into a stable income bracket.
I do sincerely believe that a lot of people are reasonably good people, but it's very difficult to be a good person when you have to fight to survive.
To be absolutely clear, however, I am well aware that there are many people who are extremely well off who are still gigantic assholes. We can't assume that someone will be nicer or better when given the right environment, but we should consider the environment when we consider an action or a consequence.
It's not so much that I think that sort of consideration is bad, it's more that it's only ever extended to the wealthy, powerful, and connected. Just as much as we're willing to say that the rich...
I think it is absolutely important to take into consideration the age of the person when an act is committed.
It's not so much that I think that sort of consideration is bad, it's more that it's only ever extended to the wealthy, powerful, and connected. Just as much as we're willing to say that the rich are "in their hearts" good despite how they act, we are also willing to ignore every good thing a poor person does and decide their "core self" is that of a delinquent or a "super-predator" and then throw the book at them.
Like, Michael Brown robbed a convenience store, got shot and killed, and people were saying he deserved it because he was a "thug." As if stealing cigarettes is a capital crime that deserves extinguishing a life rather than a petty robbery that merited some simple disciplinary action to put them on the right path. Meanwhile, that Brock Turner kid tried to rape an unconscious girl behind a dumpster and people were saying "let's not ruin his life over a mistake he made." As a society we're not only very inconsistent about who we extend this sort of clemency to, but we arguably do a pretty bad job of actually applying it to where it's deserved.
A system of rules and laws that focused more on the actions themselves rather than trying to judge the "true" moral quality of the people doing them would wind up being fairer to everyone.
I get what you're saying and agree, but it's not like there weren't people out there arguing on behalf of Brown and against Turner. It's just that their voices weren't as powerful because they...
I get what you're saying and agree, but it's not like there weren't people out there arguing on behalf of Brown and against Turner. It's just that their voices weren't as powerful because they weren't as rich and therefore couldn't pay to have their voices be louder in media.
That's really more a symptom of the issue that money = power, and it very often can affect real world consequences, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc.
A system of rules and laws that focused more on the actions themselves rather than trying to judge the "true" moral quality of the people doing them would wind up being fairer to everyone.
Perhaps it's a bit ironic that in America this is precisely what we do have. When you look at the law in many European countries there's a lot more that is considered to try and judge the "moral quality' of the people committing the acts, whereas the act itself in cold detail is what's described in American law.
The reality is that judges and juries are human, and therefore cannot divorce themselves from emotion.
I'd argue that while this is technically correct in the enforcement of the law, it's the opposite in the actual legislation. You see lots of sentiment around banning things or criminalizing things...
Perhaps it's a bit ironic that in America this is precisely what we do have.
I'd argue that while this is technically correct in the enforcement of the law, it's the opposite in the actual legislation. You see lots of sentiment around banning things or criminalizing things just because it makes people uncomfortable. When you ask people "Should marijuana be illegal" or "Should abortion be banned" they're eager to answer affirmatively. But when you ask what the actual penalty should be for marijuana possession or abortion they tend to pipe down and soft-pedal.
People want the law to function as an arbiter of personal morality and we often write the laws as if they are. But they're averse to the kind of hard-headed practicality it takes to acknowledge something as a social evil, but decide we're better off allowing it anyway.
Edit: It's a one-way ratchet. You can make laws ever stricter with lurid, fear-mongering anecdotes, but you can't sit people down and say "Yes it's bad, but making it illegal winds up being worse!" As long as they don't have to live with the consequences those side-problems aren't salient.
I would word this differently: "The true self is what what we do and how we treat each other." As you imply later, someone needs to act like a good person in order to be considered a good person....
In truth, there is no "true" self. It is what we do and how we treat each other that defines us.
I would word this differently: "The true self is what what we do and how we treat each other." As you imply later, someone needs to act like a good person in order to be considered a good person.
This idea goes at least as far back as the New Testament, where one of the gospel writers wrote:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7)
A good person is recognisable by the good they do. We are defined by our actions more than by our thoughts. The true self reveals itself through what we do.
It's not like this is a static thing though. Behaving in certain ways reinforces your predilection in behaving in those ways and makes future such behaviors easier in the future. If you frequently...
A good person is recognisable by the good they do. We are defined by our actions more than by our thoughts. The true self reveals itself through what we do.
It's not like this is a static thing though. Behaving in certain ways reinforces your predilection in behaving in those ways and makes future such behaviors easier in the future. If you frequently give into your worst nature, even if it's as simple as being rude, you're going to habituate yourself into rudeness. There is no polite person inside who is being rude, you'll just be evolving into a rude person. Even a person who is presently polite can undergo such a transition.
I did that with Bill Burr. As soon as I saw his Philly rant, I turned him off. Most of that rambling either didn't make sense, or was the laziest insult you can come up with.
I personally never got into Louis CK for exactly the reasons the author pointed out - it seemed so obviously transparent to me from the get go that if all of his comedy was about being a misogynistic jerk, that's probably because he sees the world through misogynistic jerk glasses.
I did that with Bill Burr. As soon as I saw his Philly rant, I turned him off. Most of that rambling either didn't make sense, or was the laziest insult you can come up with.
What did Daniel Tosh do (besides be "criminally unfunny") to get lumped into a list that was summarized with the sentence "Most of the men named above, of course, turned out to be sexual...
What did Daniel Tosh do (besides be "criminally unfunny") to get lumped into a list that was summarized with the sentence "Most of the men named above, of course, turned out to be sexual predators, or at least creeps, of varying degrees"? A quick DDG News search doesn't turn up anything at all.
Seems like he's being thrown under the bus (and may be the reason the word used is "Most" instead of "All") just because the author doesn't like his humour.
IIRC some woman criticized him during a show for doing a bit that made light of rape, and he responded making jokes about gang-raping her. Which, on one hand heckling someone in the middle of a...
IIRC some woman criticized him during a show for doing a bit that made light of rape, and he responded making jokes about gang-raping her.
Which, on one hand heckling someone in the middle of a set is bad. But on the other hand. . . wooooow
Ah, I see now. Thanks for helping me refine my search. That was completely tasteless. I think that's the only time I've heard of him breaking his comedy persona to apologize for one of his jokes...
Ah, I see now. Thanks for helping me refine my search.
That was completely tasteless. I think that's the only time I've heard of him breaking his comedy persona to apologize for one of his jokes (which is significant enough, I think—similar comedians like Carr or Jeselnik have never given an apology, but they've also managed to not cross that line as well).
This reminds me of the "jokes on them I was only pretending" meme. I personally never got into Louis CK for exactly the reasons the author pointed out - it seemed so obviously transparent to me from the get go that if all of his comedy was about being a misogynistic jerk, that's probably because he sees the world through misogynistic jerk glasses.
Obviously this won't always be the case, comedian or not, but to me it feels pretty darn obvious when someone is pretending. When they're not pretending the jokes tend to be a little bit more subtle, or perhaps worded in a way that's a bit less offensive. If a joke is too blunt, too racist, too sexist, or otherwise too loud in its telling, it's extremely rare that the person telling the joke doesn't harbor at the very least secret feelings on the subject of the joke - a lack of awareness of the audience and how they might perceive a joke that's potentially offensive is a clear indicator of this.
I've lately come around to the idea that we're kind of fed a lie by our culture that people have a "core" or "true" self that exists independently of how they actually behave. People insist that despite the bad things someone does, they are good people "in their hearts" so we shouldn't judge them too harshly.
It seems self-serving. The "he's a good kid, don't ruin his life over one mistake" (the 'mistake' being anything from actual sexual assault, drunk driving, or whatever other criminal or reckless behavior) only ever gets used to help already privileged people get away with behaving thoughtlessly, irresponsibly, or even downright abusively in extreme cases like Louis CK's.
In truth, there is no "true" self. It is what we do and how we treat each other that defines us. Even if you're a good person "on the inside," what does that matter for the rest of us? You need to act like a good person if you expect society to confer the benefits of being a good person on you.
Culturally we've kind of moved away from the concept of "honor" as a way of deciding who we hold in esteem. We resort to "success" instead--which we measure using proxies like fame and wealth--which doesn't work as well. No sense of honor means no sense of dishonor, and I worry that shame/dishonor was the only thing that ever kept powerful men in check.
While I agree with you on a personal level, we can't hold a comedians/artists act against them until they start acting out like Louis CK has. There are plenty of successful comedians who are/were good people who could actually pull off the reduction to absurdity bit. I'm not saying anyone has to enjoy this type of comedy but there absolutely should be room for them if that's the type of act they want to do. That being said, I've seen people still defending people like Louis CK, which is insane. I agree that outside of the arts, there is no difference between someones "true self" and their public persona. The dude has shown multiple times now his "true self" sucks and while he has the right to make the recent jokes he did, he absolutely deserves the backlash he's getting for it.
On a whole, I agree that we have our core selves which are reflected in our actions.
However, when you said
I think it is absolutely important to take into consideration the age of the person when an act is committed.
Think back to how you were, and how you acted, when you were younger. I absolutely did a bunch of dumb, fucked up, and straight up malicious shit even into my teenage years.
I also know plenty of people who have changed drastically even in their late 20s, because they finally moved out of a destructive environment or moved into a stable income bracket.
I do sincerely believe that a lot of people are reasonably good people, but it's very difficult to be a good person when you have to fight to survive.
To be absolutely clear, however, I am well aware that there are many people who are extremely well off who are still gigantic assholes. We can't assume that someone will be nicer or better when given the right environment, but we should consider the environment when we consider an action or a consequence.
It's not so much that I think that sort of consideration is bad, it's more that it's only ever extended to the wealthy, powerful, and connected. Just as much as we're willing to say that the rich are "in their hearts" good despite how they act, we are also willing to ignore every good thing a poor person does and decide their "core self" is that of a delinquent or a "super-predator" and then throw the book at them.
Like, Michael Brown robbed a convenience store, got shot and killed, and people were saying he deserved it because he was a "thug." As if stealing cigarettes is a capital crime that deserves extinguishing a life rather than a petty robbery that merited some simple disciplinary action to put them on the right path. Meanwhile, that Brock Turner kid tried to rape an unconscious girl behind a dumpster and people were saying "let's not ruin his life over a mistake he made." As a society we're not only very inconsistent about who we extend this sort of clemency to, but we arguably do a pretty bad job of actually applying it to where it's deserved.
A system of rules and laws that focused more on the actions themselves rather than trying to judge the "true" moral quality of the people doing them would wind up being fairer to everyone.
I get what you're saying and agree, but it's not like there weren't people out there arguing on behalf of Brown and against Turner. It's just that their voices weren't as powerful because they weren't as rich and therefore couldn't pay to have their voices be louder in media.
That's really more a symptom of the issue that money = power, and it very often can affect real world consequences, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc.
Perhaps it's a bit ironic that in America this is precisely what we do have. When you look at the law in many European countries there's a lot more that is considered to try and judge the "moral quality' of the people committing the acts, whereas the act itself in cold detail is what's described in American law.
The reality is that judges and juries are human, and therefore cannot divorce themselves from emotion.
I'd argue that while this is technically correct in the enforcement of the law, it's the opposite in the actual legislation. You see lots of sentiment around banning things or criminalizing things just because it makes people uncomfortable. When you ask people "Should marijuana be illegal" or "Should abortion be banned" they're eager to answer affirmatively. But when you ask what the actual penalty should be for marijuana possession or abortion they tend to pipe down and soft-pedal.
People want the law to function as an arbiter of personal morality and we often write the laws as if they are. But they're averse to the kind of hard-headed practicality it takes to acknowledge something as a social evil, but decide we're better off allowing it anyway.
Edit: It's a one-way ratchet. You can make laws ever stricter with lurid, fear-mongering anecdotes, but you can't sit people down and say "Yes it's bad, but making it illegal winds up being worse!" As long as they don't have to live with the consequences those side-problems aren't salient.
I would word this differently: "The true self is what what we do and how we treat each other." As you imply later, someone needs to act like a good person in order to be considered a good person.
This idea goes at least as far back as the New Testament, where one of the gospel writers wrote:
A good person is recognisable by the good they do. We are defined by our actions more than by our thoughts. The true self reveals itself through what we do.
It's not like this is a static thing though. Behaving in certain ways reinforces your predilection in behaving in those ways and makes future such behaviors easier in the future. If you frequently give into your worst nature, even if it's as simple as being rude, you're going to habituate yourself into rudeness. There is no polite person inside who is being rude, you'll just be evolving into a rude person. Even a person who is presently polite can undergo such a transition.
That's essentially what Bojack Horseman is all about. Which is why I consider it the best animated series of 2010s.
I did that with Bill Burr. As soon as I saw his Philly rant, I turned him off. Most of that rambling either didn't make sense, or was the laziest insult you can come up with.
I mean, I assumed he was legitimately an asshole. Not the whipping-out-his-dick randomly type, but he clearly is a jerk. But also funny.
What did Daniel Tosh do (besides be "criminally unfunny") to get lumped into a list that was summarized with the sentence "Most of the men named above, of course, turned out to be sexual predators, or at least creeps, of varying degrees"? A quick DDG News search doesn't turn up anything at all.
Seems like he's being thrown under the bus (and may be the reason the word used is "Most" instead of "All") just because the author doesn't like his humour.
IIRC some woman criticized him during a show for doing a bit that made light of rape, and he responded making jokes about gang-raping her.
Which, on one hand heckling someone in the middle of a set is bad. But on the other hand. . . wooooow
Ah, I see now. Thanks for helping me refine my search.
That was completely tasteless. I think that's the only time I've heard of him breaking his comedy persona to apologize for one of his jokes (which is significant enough, I think—similar comedians like Carr or Jeselnik have never given an apology, but they've also managed to not cross that line as well).