Amph [The Daily Show] Once Again With Jon Stewart (sometimes)

But then we wouldn't be able to have this argument!

Wait a second...

 

I'll continue to watch Bill Maher on HBO, and mostly avoid the Comedy Central stuff.

 

The problem is that the goalposts on what's "offensive" shift so constantly that often a comedian isn't aware of what's in bounds and what isn't. And then there is the whole thing where a comedian is actually getting paid to make people laugh. It's not really a choice to make jokes when making jokes is how you make money. I understand that you can police the content of your jokes and you should, but there's a very fine line between hilarious and offensive and that line moves every day it seems to me. It's just hard for a comedian today to know what's in bounds and what isn't. And most comedians are pretty desperate people; making people laugh is hard and they don't want to starve, so they push the envelope. I mean, name me a comedian who hasn't said something that could be construed as offensive.

I think it's more realistic to ask people to be less offended at comedy than to ask comedians to stop being offensive. And, in any case, while we're waiting for comedians to become inoffensive, there is still the choice that the offended person can make to be less offended. And I can't control what people say to me and about me; what I can control is my reaction. I'm not Trevor Noah and neither are you; neither one of us can do anything about his jokes once he's told them - there they are and they exist. But we can mitigate our reactions so that they don't become outrage. It's all about figuring out what you can and can't do.

But I'm certainly not defending the jokes in question here or that Noah is a "better" person than the people that are offended. The jokes are awful and I would never say that they are "doing what comedy is intended to do" since comedy is intended, first and foremost, to be funny.

But let me ask you. Do you think comedy is art? Because if it is, and I certainly think it is, then comedy can indeed belong to a higher class than the basic internet troll vitriol. See what you think about this: take a routine by, say, Richard Pryor and think about it in the context of hearing it on a Richard Pryor album and then in the context of hearing a guy on the subway using a lot of the same words and maybe even the same sentiments. Isn't one art and the other not? Or imagine your cousin (random) going on a tirade about how offensive the Pryor routine is? Is that really worthy of the same artistic consideration as the original routine? Those two things are really of equal value? Extrapolate those questions into the realm of literature, film, music, whatever. There are levels of discourse. Some things are okay when said in art that aren't okay when someone just says them on the internet or on the subway.

Again, we've definitely moved into a more philosophical area of discussion here (and I'm having fun) and away from the specific Noah jokes. I mean, I don't think anyone would defend that stuff as art. I certainly wouldn't. Especially not the tweets; the knee-jerk, thoughtless joke on Twitter has essentially the same status as the outraged, offended response on Twitter. But I find the larger discussion that we've stumbled into very interesting. But if you think we're too off topic, we can call the discussion whenever. You're the mod, so I defer.

 

I mean, fair enough. Bear in mind my original rambling tirade was sparked off by the one-two combination of an obnoxiously self-serving Time article and that ****ing Duckman clip, so that's coloring at least a bit of where my arguments are coming from.

Honestly for the next bit I don't think you're going to be terribly satisfied with my response.

Sure, but I'd extend that classification to any type of intentional performance piece, and I don't hold art up as permitted to explore subjects that casual discourse cannot - which is shaving it a little close. Essentially, while I might prefer to watch Citizen Kane for the thousandth time rather than read a bunch of posts about cats on Twitter, I don't think there's a meaningful way to authentically and coherently always extend the benefit of the doubt on quality of sentiment expressed to all art, nor do I think there's an authentic and coherent means of always determining what methods of communicating ideas are more worthy of intellectual engagement than others. They're equivalent to me in the sense that neither becomes magically immune to criticism or reaction or engagement simply by virtue of a classification as subjective and artificial as the "art" label.

I could break either way; it's admittedly kind of weird to be talking about how I have epistemological issues with prioritizing art in valued discourse in the The Daily Show thread.

 

Maybe we've come to a nice balance point because I somewhat agree with you on this. I mean, the difficulty is certainly with the subjectivity of the "art" label, as you put it, and I think you're correct really about the impossibility of always figuring out where those boundaries are and what really deserves the benefit of the doubt. I mean, I've certainly seen movies and read books that I thought fell short of what I would consider "great art" and therefore opened themselves up to more criticism for things they did or said than I would have allowed had they been more subjectively "great." Certainly, all comedy shouldn't get a pass for being about horrible things; some of it really is just crass and vulgar and, in my opinion, not art at all. Comedy is a form that can be art and when it is, I give it a pass on somethings; but it can also just be a poor attempt at art and when it is, I think it can be criticized a bit more harshly. So, yeah, it is certainly all subjective; what I give a pass because it's great art, you might be very offended at because it falls short of being great art. So, I'm happier with that answer than you expected, I think.

Anyway, this was a fun discussion. Always interesting to discuss something as multi-layered as this with an intelligent person I respect.

 

As Oscar Wilde famously said, "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all."


I'm not concerned with whether Noah's comments were offensive; I'm a little concerned that they weren't funny. They seemed like the jokes of a lame random 20-something dude, not a professional comedian.

But having said that, this isn't to say he hasn't gotten better. I have to say I think his standup is just average, and you'd like to see someone brilliant in that chair. However, those two forms aren't at all the same. Doing the hosting and interview side of things is also important, and I think Noah did that back in SA...? So perhaps that was a factor (though my top choice still would have been Mandvi once Samantha Bee was gone).

Anyway, I'm willing to watch and see if Noah has improved since 2011, or if he's just not cut out for it at this level. But as for the tweets, they are more worryingly unfunnny than worryingly prejudiced.

 

Agreed

 

Started watching Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. It's absolutely fantastic, easily as good as the Daily Show at its prime. I'm disappointed with myself for not having watched this sooner. Oliver seems to borrow heavily from Stewart's format, but he does it so gracefully that it's kind of sad that he left TDS. He would have made a great successor to Stewart. His entire show seems to be an homage to what Stewart did to TDS.

Even if Noah takes the show in a different direction, at least we have Oliver and his show serving as spiritual successor to Stewart.

 

Does it make sense that Stewart comes across way more authentic to me than John Oliver? With Stewart I hardly ever notice his autocue. While Oliver seems to be an autocue, albeit a very jolly one. Or is that just me?

 

Stewart's been at it a lot longer. When he had the equivalent of Oliver's experience, it was ~2000, maybe earlier if you count the show he hosted before TDS.

 

>I’ve lived a life where I’ve never really fitted in in any particular way. Even now, people still debate on what I am. People say, ‘Oh you’re black,’ And then someone will turn around and say, ‘But he’s not black, he’s coloured.’ And then coloured people will say, ‘But you’re not coloured.’

The plight of being mixed race. I was an outsider when I lived in Pakistan. And I'm an outsider here in the US. And let's not forget the shameful "Is Obama black enough?" nonsense that some did during the 2008 election.

 

I think it's a bit different in the South African context, Vivec.

 

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201504100900

Totally making up how destructive twitter mobs are, right?

 

Well, all good things must come to an end I guess.

 

...no one is cancelling the internet over this.

yet.

 

Stewart interview on quitting the show

Long read, well worth it.

 

"I respect Jon Stewart but MAN REMEMBER THAT TIME I TOTALLY OWNED HIM LOL I'M AWESOME."

Admittedly that's about what I'd expect from Bill O'Reilly.

 

Pretty sure O'Rielly was being humorous throughout the piece.

 

Frankly I can never tell when the man is being serious.

 

one would hope never.