Ricky Gervais

[Mutagen]

May 26, 2022 18:01:28 GMT -4 ahah said:

May 26, 2022 17:35:26 GMT -4 Mutagen said:

People have been declaring comedians "not funny" since the beginning of comedy. We all know male comedians have never held back from declaring that female comedians, as a group, just aren't funny. Some people hate prop comedy. Dane Cook is pretty much the go-to example of a hack comedian. Dave Chappelle didn't hesitate to declare Hannah Gadsby not funny.

Why should Ricky Gervais suddenly be a sacred cow in this regard?

I have no problem with people calling something not funny when it doesn't make them laugh, as I already said. What I object to is this movement of a group of people deciding that the subject matter of a comedian is not acceptable, and declaring that the correct approach to that is to declare them not funny objecting to the platforms that person has earned. If you think it's not funny, turn it off. Accept that other people get to make that decision for themselves. If you believe that what is being done is harmful, there are more persuasive ways to show that. Rather than declaring it not funny (which again, is easily dismissed by the people in the audience laughing) explain to people what damage is done and work to convince them it's not worth it.

Ricky Gervais is not a sacred cow. In my book, comedy is a sacred cow. It can be a fantastic avenue for communicating and I don't like the actions attempting to stop it. Please note I said here "attempting to". I"m not claiming it's succeeded, so pointing out that specials ae still on streaming platforms, or that harassers still get Grammy's is irrelevant. Because truly if all of this movement of outrage is NOT intent on making them go away, it's a poorly communicated message with an unclear goal. Hey, maybe comedy would be a more effective way to communicate it!

I guess comedy being a sacred cow is where we disagree. There was a time when blackface minstrelsy was seen as the height of comedy. There was a time when open homophobia killed. I don't agree with the idea that comedy is so untouchable that people should meekly sit down and shut up and accept their place as today's target until whenever society decides to move on. (And a lot of the reason society does move on is because people speak up.) I'm not obligated to think that Lenny Bruce's obscenity trial and Michael Richards' N-bomb incident are equivalently laudable acts of transgression, you know?

And just to add: We've all laughed at things we probably "shouldn't" for one reason or another. I'm not advocating for purity tests or perfectly sanitized comedy. I just think if comedians want to make a point of commenting on a community, that community gets to comment back. Free speech is a two way street. 

[ahah]

May 27, 2022 20:11:14 GMT -4 Mutagen said:

May 26, 2022 18:01:28 GMT -4 ahah said:

I have no problem with people calling something not funny when it doesn't make them laugh, as I already said. What I object to is this movement of a group of people deciding that the subject matter of a comedian is not acceptable, and declaring that the correct approach to that is to declare them not funny objecting to the platforms that person has earned. If you think it's not funny, turn it off. Accept that other people get to make that decision for themselves. If you believe that what is being done is harmful, there are more persuasive ways to show that. Rather than declaring it not funny (which again, is easily dismissed by the people in the audience laughing) explain to people what damage is done and work to convince them it's not worth it.

Ricky Gervais is not a sacred cow. In my book, comedy is a sacred cow. It can be a fantastic avenue for communicating and I don't like the actions attempting to stop it. Please note I said here "attempting to". I"m not claiming it's succeeded, so pointing out that specials ae still on streaming platforms, or that harassers still get Grammy's is irrelevant. Because truly if all of this movement of outrage is NOT intent on making them go away, it's a poorly communicated message with an unclear goal. Hey, maybe comedy would be a more effective way to communicate it!

I guess comedy being a sacred cow is where we disagree. There was a time when blackface minstrelsy was seen as the height of comedy. There was a time when open homophobia killed. I don't agree with the idea that comedy is so untouchable that people should meekly sit down and shut up and accept their place as today's target until whenever society decides to move on. (And a lot of the reason society does move on is because people speak up.) I'm not obligated to think that Lenny Bruce's obscenity trial and Michael Richards' N-bomb incident are equivalently laudable acts of transgression, you know?

And just to add: We've all laughed at things we probably "shouldn't" for one reason or another. I'm not advocating for purity tests or perfectly sanitized comedy. I just think if comedians want to make a point of commenting on a community, that community gets to comment back. Free speech is a two way street. 

Great! We’re in agreement because I never said people should sit down and shut up and accept their place! I also didn’t say you’re obligated to think it’s laudable acts!
Again, the aspect of comedy I’m concerned with defending is comedy as a form of communication. Communication brings an exchange of ideas, listening, and debate. It’s far more effective than exaggerating in order to dismiss.

[cremetangerine82]

Speaking of humor, if you can’t stand the heat, Ricky…

[Ridha]

Not sure that not engaging with/blocking fairly vicious posts can be equated to “not being able to take it”. After all, everyone on this thread is in agreement that any person has the right to find a comedian personally funny or unfunny and not tune in if it’s the latter. Where the argument is whether those who find a comedian unfunny can call for cancellation.

That’s all Gervais is doing too; electing not to personally tune in. Not reporting the posts or calling for Twitter to ban them. The conclusions reached in the article and the tag line linking it are a tad illogical.

[Deleted]

May 29, 2022 2:43:39 GMT -4 Ridha said:

Not sure that not engaging with/blocking fairly vicious posts can be equated to “not being able to take it”. After all, everyone on this thread is in agreement that any person has the right to find a comedian personally funny or unfunny and not tune in if it’s the latter. Where the argument is whether those who find a comedian unfunny can call for cancellation.

That’s all Gervais is doing too; electing not to personally tune in. Not reporting the posts or calling for Twitter to ban them. The conclusions reached in the article and the tag line linking it are a tad illogical.

One of the screenshots included in the piece was someone claiming that Gervais tweeted about him and tagged the guy's employer after he'd posted something critical of Gervais, which is going a lot farther than just blocking and not engaging.

[Ridha]

@foiegras I went back and re-read the above linked article - particularly the screenshots - again after reading your comment. Can’t find anything like that? The screenshots only seem to be chortling posts by those who seem to think they’ve “exposed his thin-skinness” (by blocking). Nothing about him have reported a post that I could find, let alone to someone’s employer? Are we talking about the same article linked about 3 posts up?

[cremetangerine82]

May 29, 2022 12:32:03 GMT -4 Ridha said:

@foiegras I went back and re-read the above linked article - particularly the screenshots - again after reading your comment. Can’t find anything like that? The screenshots only seem to be chortling posts by those who seem to think they’ve “exposed his thin-skinness” (by blocking). Nothing about him have reported a post that I could find, let alone to someone’s employer? Are we talking about the same article linked about 3 posts up?

Here’s the article again.

Here’s the sentence that precedes the quoted tweet:

And it’s not just Caraballo. Twitter is filled with folks not only blocked by Gervais, but trolled by him in response to their tweets:

The tweet that is in the same article I posted above:

Chase Mitchell (@chasemit)
One time Ricky Gervais searched his name on twitter, saw that I said he wasn’t funny, then tried to get me fired by tagging my boss in a tweet about it. Anyway he’s 100 percent reading everything you’re saying
11:52 AM · May 24, 2022

In summary, trying to get someone fired from their employer because they said that you weren’t funny on social media goes way beyond just blocking people who say negative things about you as a public figure. That’s practically the dictionary definition of “thin-skinned”.

ETA: I don’t know who’s running The Mary Sue website, I had trouble trying to read the article because it kept refreshing every two minutes. It’s annoying, and it kept happening while scrolling for the tweet.

[Ridha]

Thanks for the screenshot.

Yes I would agree that was thin skinned and below the belt by Ricky, and not what I would have expected of him, as usually I’ve seen him ignore or give good comebacks to trolls or those who disagree (and depending on how vicious the latter group get it can be a thin line). Getting someone’s boss involved, or any third party really, is not cool.

V strange I still can’t see it in the original but I guess that must be a tech glitch.

[seat6]

That is so bizarre. Why would anyone’s boss care if you thought Gervais was funny or not? I certainly don’t know what my employees’ taste in pop culture is, unless we both happen to be fans. We talk about pop culture casually, as in “Have you seen this movie? “ or “I’m going to a concert.” I would love it if Gervais tweeted at me that one of my co-workers was making fun of him. Then I could make fun of him too.

[cremetangerine82]

May 30, 2022 11:56:25 GMT -4 Ridha said:

Thanks for the screenshot.

Yes I would agree that was thin skinned and below the belt by Ricky, and not what I would have expected of him, as usually I’ve seen him ignore or give good comebacks to trolls or those who disagree (and depending on how vicious the latter group get it can be a thin line). Getting someone’s boss involved, or any third party really, is not cool.

V strange I still can’t see it in the original but I guess that must be a tech glitch.

Link to the tweet on Twitter.

Whom ever is programming the website are horrible! No wonder you couldn’t find the tweet when he keeps refreshing every 120 seconds!