- 17,915
- 4,747
- Joined
- May 28, 2009
Bill Burr said it went well though 
Said that Pedroa and Gronk killed.
Hmmm
Said that Pedroa and Gronk killed.
Hmmm
Broadcast of David Ortiz roast cancelled b/c of racist jokes...
- 47,151
- 96,475
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2013
Yup. Clown them and they get in their feelings then the racial slurs come flying out.
They are, but they have to deal with the consequences.
- 1,764
- 319
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
Reading the jokes in that article seems like they sucked.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,837
- 191,454
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
I'm not soft ike you b, I have no problems defending myself verbally.
If and when the backlash comes, I will handle it. I have no problem stopping, I won't cry about how things were different back in the day.
Like some inadequate dudes love to do
- 7,342
- 3,845
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2012
There are Jews in football?
- 44,211
- 73,309
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2004
Wat was the aaron hernandez joke tho and who said it ?
- 43,117
- 28,055
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
The whole 'PC ruined ____' is corny.
If you look at the circumstances, you can understand why a sports network that has never conducted an actual roast would pull this.
It was the network. Before it aired. There was no public response to react to, so the PC argument is moot. The network didn't want to take the chance. This has happened so many times that we haven't even heard about, that to say that this is a case of PC tempering down freedom of speech is very low hanging fruit and lacks any real critical thinking.
If you look at the circumstances, you can understand why a sports network that has never conducted an actual roast would pull this.
It was the network. Before it aired. There was no public response to react to, so the PC argument is moot. The network didn't want to take the chance. This has happened so many times that we haven't even heard about, that to say that this is a case of PC tempering down freedom of speech is very low hanging fruit and lacks any real critical thinking.
- 8,723
- 5,687
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
I heard that too.Bill Burr said it went well though
Said that Pedroa and Gronk killed.
Hmmm
I think he might have meant they got laughs from the audience and not that the jokes were actually funny...I mean if someone tells a knock knock joke and the crowds howling, then I can say that person bombed
- 17,915
- 4,747
- Joined
- May 28, 2009
Don't know how I feel. Roasts are wild.
We always knew - but these last couple of years have been too much
We always knew - but these last couple of years have been too much
Last edited:
- 20,396
- 14,184
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Whoever had the idea should have reached out to Comedy Central.
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
da news about it being pulled went viral, so PC culture neutering things transcends da network, with alot of of ancillary moving parts that make da story more compelling (Boston's history, Boston haters, etc.)
- 22,940
- 33,420
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
Or the network heads watched it and thought "wow we can't air this what were we thinking"
- 53,272
- 20,838
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
Should've told them it had to be a pg or pg-13 roast.
- 1,519
- 256
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
It's a sports network, so I understand why it had to be pulled. However, the PC argument isn't moot and shouldn't be ruled out. It is widely known that most modern media (esepcially big networks - ABC, NBS, CBS etc) is liberal media and placates to liberal groups and way-left activism. The network made a pre-emptive decision to pull the roast to prevent any backlash from such groups. The jokes weren't that harsh, they were just awfully written.
Last edited:
- 53,272
- 20,838
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
It is sensitive times. john mcenroe's comments have been discussed on shows for the past 2 days. People saying they were unnecessary but avoiding saying if they had some validity or were true. Except on fs1 they said serena should get washed by one of the 700 ranked pro male players.
Last edited:
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- 10,901
- 9,179
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2014
It's just jokes man. This **** too sensitive.
- 17,915
- 4,747
- Joined
- May 28, 2009
I feel like I understand this.
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- 10,560
- 10,715
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
quise2024
Banned
- 20,741
- 4,690
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
THIS
quise2024
Banned
- 20,741
- 4,690
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
I never understood the point of these roast shows anyway .. and why are other people the butt of jokes when the roast is about Ortiz
- 7,342
- 28,797
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
At its core, most comedy comes from absurdity. Humor routinely exposes the gap between expectation and result. 90% of "America's Funniest Home Videos" can be distilled to "person attempts to do X; it does not go well." These are things even toddlers find funny. Once they become verbal, young children are able to "get" simple "knock knock" jokes that play on double meanings. (e.g. the expected form, "Boo who?" and the unexpected form "boo hoo.")
Through satire, a skilled comedian can expose the absurdities in our shared traditions and institutions. They can poke at the notion that "our social betters" are actually better. They expose hypocrisy. They identify non sequiturs.
If we acknowledge that absurdity is rhetorically, if not cognitively, combustible, it makes sense that many comedians would try to practice their craft in an ethical, responsible way. If you consider fireworks an "art," that doesn't mean it's good practice to commit arson, or that anything that can be ignited, should.
To this end, the comedians I most respect all tend to follow a very simple and well known guideline: don't punch down.
Traditionally, a roast has been an opportunity for comedians to poke fun at the famous or powerful. Knocking such people off their pedestals humanizes them. A roast emphasizes that, no matter how lofty a person's status or position, we are all flawed. We're all human.
Making fun of a celebrity for character flaws accomplishes this goal. Making fun of a celebrity for being a minority targets that minority group. Hierarchically, it denigrates the celebrity by association - but operates by further stomping down a group that has already been historically suppressed. It's punching down.
Not only is that unethical, but, as many comedians and comedy fans would argue, it's lazy. (And, to the comedian who takes their craft seriously, the latter might be the greater offense.)
Race/gender stereotypes use humor in a subversive way, to emphasize the purported differences between "us" and "them." Small children are particularly prone to these jokes as they're learning about their identity and place in society. Jokes have traditionally reinforced things like race or gender boundaries. "This is what it means to be ____." "You don't want to be like ____." "Aren't you glad you're not ____?" Many jokes in this vein all share a similar structure and purpose. You could swap out the subjects of various "dumb" jokes (e.g. the inventory of the "screen-door submarine") and they'd still function. Often, they're just "point and shoot." The target is interchangeable.
If you're someone who cares at all about prejudice and hatred, you have every right to question or criticize these jokes. They could function just as well without "punching down," so it's fair to ask: "why did you aim it at ____?"
Shock humor could be considered adolescent comedy. It plays off the expectation of what is acceptable to say in society by delivering the exact opposite of that. 12 year olds almost universally adore whatever has the most profanity in it, simply because it's "forbidden fruit." The idea of saying something that you're not supposed to say is funny and novel to them in the way that the "boo hoo" joke is funny and novel to the child who is still learning the nuances of language, and the illogic of allowing the same phonetic symbols to represent dramatically disparate concepts.
The constraints of civility and etiquette are similarly hilarious to adolescents. They're coming into their own physically and rail against the constraints imposed upon them by their parents/society. They find the idea of civilizing the human animal to be an exercise in futility. When it comes to teen angst, anything that pokes holes in the logic used to confine or govern their behavior is a godsend. Some people never "age out" of nihilist humor. They see any attempt to create meaning as inherently meaningless, and would rather just watch the world burn.
For those who see comedy as an art, "shock humor" is just cheap and vulgar. It has all the artistic merit of a 5 year old treating their classmates to armpit flatulence. What yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is to free speech, telling racist jokes in a crowded theater is to comedy. It's an easy - and potentially dangerous - way to get a rise out of people.
People have every right to demand more from comedians. If you spray paint a racial slur or a swastika on a wall, saying "it's art" is a weak defense. And, if people criticize it, are you really going to reply "PC culture is ruining street art?" No. The message matters.
If you choose to practice your "art" in a way that harms others, you rightfully open yourself up to criticism. (Not that critics require permission to have an opinion of an artistic work to begin with.)
If anything, the "free speech" loving comedian can't be so sensitive as to consider themselves or their peers immune to criticism. If you can make fun of whomever or whatever you like, your audience has that same liberty - and can take you to task for your behavior.
That's not censorship. It's an opinion about an opinion.
You can still make the lazy, tasteless, offensive joke, but you're not entitled to a platform for it.
I love comedy. Who doesn't? That doesn't mean I should be accepting of any trashy attempt at humor, or that I should ignore what racist comedy says about our society and those who find it amusing.
I'm no more required to abide racist jokes than I am obligated to buy a black velvet painting of a sad clown because I appreciate art.
Through satire, a skilled comedian can expose the absurdities in our shared traditions and institutions. They can poke at the notion that "our social betters" are actually better. They expose hypocrisy. They identify non sequiturs.
If we acknowledge that absurdity is rhetorically, if not cognitively, combustible, it makes sense that many comedians would try to practice their craft in an ethical, responsible way. If you consider fireworks an "art," that doesn't mean it's good practice to commit arson, or that anything that can be ignited, should.
To this end, the comedians I most respect all tend to follow a very simple and well known guideline: don't punch down.
Traditionally, a roast has been an opportunity for comedians to poke fun at the famous or powerful. Knocking such people off their pedestals humanizes them. A roast emphasizes that, no matter how lofty a person's status or position, we are all flawed. We're all human.
Making fun of a celebrity for character flaws accomplishes this goal. Making fun of a celebrity for being a minority targets that minority group. Hierarchically, it denigrates the celebrity by association - but operates by further stomping down a group that has already been historically suppressed. It's punching down.
Not only is that unethical, but, as many comedians and comedy fans would argue, it's lazy. (And, to the comedian who takes their craft seriously, the latter might be the greater offense.)
Race/gender stereotypes use humor in a subversive way, to emphasize the purported differences between "us" and "them." Small children are particularly prone to these jokes as they're learning about their identity and place in society. Jokes have traditionally reinforced things like race or gender boundaries. "This is what it means to be ____." "You don't want to be like ____." "Aren't you glad you're not ____?" Many jokes in this vein all share a similar structure and purpose. You could swap out the subjects of various "dumb" jokes (e.g. the inventory of the "screen-door submarine") and they'd still function. Often, they're just "point and shoot." The target is interchangeable.
If you're someone who cares at all about prejudice and hatred, you have every right to question or criticize these jokes. They could function just as well without "punching down," so it's fair to ask: "why did you aim it at ____?"
Shock humor could be considered adolescent comedy. It plays off the expectation of what is acceptable to say in society by delivering the exact opposite of that. 12 year olds almost universally adore whatever has the most profanity in it, simply because it's "forbidden fruit." The idea of saying something that you're not supposed to say is funny and novel to them in the way that the "boo hoo" joke is funny and novel to the child who is still learning the nuances of language, and the illogic of allowing the same phonetic symbols to represent dramatically disparate concepts.
The constraints of civility and etiquette are similarly hilarious to adolescents. They're coming into their own physically and rail against the constraints imposed upon them by their parents/society. They find the idea of civilizing the human animal to be an exercise in futility. When it comes to teen angst, anything that pokes holes in the logic used to confine or govern their behavior is a godsend. Some people never "age out" of nihilist humor. They see any attempt to create meaning as inherently meaningless, and would rather just watch the world burn.
For those who see comedy as an art, "shock humor" is just cheap and vulgar. It has all the artistic merit of a 5 year old treating their classmates to armpit flatulence. What yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is to free speech, telling racist jokes in a crowded theater is to comedy. It's an easy - and potentially dangerous - way to get a rise out of people.
People have every right to demand more from comedians. If you spray paint a racial slur or a swastika on a wall, saying "it's art" is a weak defense. And, if people criticize it, are you really going to reply "PC culture is ruining street art?" No. The message matters.
If you choose to practice your "art" in a way that harms others, you rightfully open yourself up to criticism. (Not that critics require permission to have an opinion of an artistic work to begin with.)
If anything, the "free speech" loving comedian can't be so sensitive as to consider themselves or their peers immune to criticism. If you can make fun of whomever or whatever you like, your audience has that same liberty - and can take you to task for your behavior.
That's not censorship. It's an opinion about an opinion.
You can still make the lazy, tasteless, offensive joke, but you're not entitled to a platform for it.
I love comedy. Who doesn't? That doesn't mean I should be accepting of any trashy attempt at humor, or that I should ignore what racist comedy says about our society and those who find it amusing.
I'm no more required to abide racist jokes than I am obligated to buy a black velvet painting of a sad clown because I appreciate art.
- 68,278
- 103,656
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
We calling families liberal groups now?
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
"working families party" is a liberal group in NY.