Some of them are good. Wallace Shawn and Danny DeVito have good politics, and Steve Buscemi was a volunteer firefighter who responded to 9/11. So the short and ugly ones maybe. Got that hobbit energy.
Re: Seth MacFarlane. I’m sure his animated stuff fits that bill, but “The Orville” is a super progressive show. Last season featured an episode involving gender dysmorphia and essentially trans-rights (in space of course) that was wonderfully done.
It also had a direct comparison of the soviets to the nazis with that, this is just like the molotov ribbentrop, line. MacFarlane probably didn’t write it, but his character said it and its his show. I’d love to know what the hell he was thinking on that one.
To preface this, I have no idea who Seth MacFarlane is or what The Orville is so this isn’t a defence of anything like that.
MacFarlane might not have much choice. This is the political economic factor that Parenti emphasises in his two books on media.
If there’s any kind of board above MacFarlane, it’s likely populated by reactionaries who appoint each other. And they’ll allow some progressive themes but will insist on balancing out the message. Writers/producers/directors either toe the line or they’re dropped or the show is dropped or it’s made and never really aired or promoted. However progressive you are, you still end up headbutting the gatekeepers.
It’s probably unescapable in capitalist culture. I seen that hundreds of times in books of very varied genres in Poland, author write about something totally unrelated, then boom sudden random jab at communism, then back to the topic, like a fucking commercial in TV. It have no sense whatsoever in most cases but is so incredibly common that it has to be some editorial tip for having your book published easier.
Part of this realization goes in hand with the recognition that, overwhelmingly, nearly anyone who is anyone in media is related to someone rich and powerful.
I don’t even mean kids of movie stars or record producers cause that’s just the standard nepotism everyone knows about. I mean like a ton of famous people are at most one familial step removed from an influential political actor or business magnate who helped fund their career pursuit in some fashion. There’s definitely exceptions and you can find some with good politics regardless but it’s pretty wild to realize how much of our media is created by rich failsons.
We play a game at home when watching stuff where we will google actors in the thing we’re watching to see what their background is, and almost 99% of the time they come from a background like you mentioned.
The more famous the comedian, the more they reflect mainstream ideology. Look no further than the popular comedian of the moment to understand where the public mindset is. I wouldn’t be surprised if we get more Jeff-Dunham-racist-puppet acts soon.
I think it’s fun to contrast people like Tom Segura and Bill Burr. Tom for a long time had this outward appearance of a typical lib, riding the lines on acceptable speech. Bill for a long time had this outward appearance of an angry straight, white, male, capturing a similar audience to someone like Andrew Dice Clay. Now, Tom’s persona is full-on rich boy prick status, with direct disdain for the poor. Whereas now, Bill’s persona (especially if you listen to his podcast) is way more “woke” and left-leaning than he ever was. The SWM audience is still there and periodically writes into his podcast only to be laughed at by Bill for being misogynistic and weird. It’s clear he has some level of solidarity with working-class people.
Segura was always a piece of shit in love with himself, Billy blue balls didn’t change; the world did.
Comparing Burr to Dice Clay is a level of so completely fucking wrong I didn’t even know it existed so kudos I guess for that
Do you really believe in identity politics, and reject materialism so strongly you actually cannot see past “white man” ? You’re probably not alone in that I guess.
Comparing Burr to Dice Clay is a level of so completely fucking wrong I didn’t even know it existed so kudos I guess for that
Andrew Dice Clay might as well have been an “Mens Rights” activist. His material’s only goal was to attract as many angry and alienated men and provide them with a “safe space” that reaffirmed their beliefs on WHO was the culprit of their alienation. He got as many laughs as he did men cheering, shouting, and generally expressing anger as a reaction to his jokes.
Bill attracted a similar kind of group, not because he was actively courting them, but because he WAS an angry white dude, and that anger was reflected in his act. His jokes about arguing with girlfriends or his frustration with the social “pass” he perceived women to have resonated with these folks and often it’s the only part of the act they recall. Even to this day they still show up in his orbit. In the last couple of episodes of his podcast, a fan wrote in with this long-winded story about his girlfriend and something she did that was driving him crazy, and how she never would hear him out or change her ways. It was clear he was fishing for Bill to tell him he was right, but his only response to the email was “Eh… Maybe you should take a look at yourself here, and figure out why you react that way to what she’s doing. Work on your own issues dude.”
Do you really believe in identity politics, and reject materialism so strongly you actually cannot see past “white man”? You’re probably not alone in that I guess.
Almost all mainstream comedy is rooted in Identity with rare exceptions. From the Redneck Comedy Tour to Silverman’s Jewish comedy, to the comedians with sets about the black experience. The degree to which they lean into their identity might vary from comedian to comedian but it is an ever-constant aspect of comedy. The population by and large is wrapped up in identity politics, so it is no wonder why when a comedian is speaking about their identity it attracts an audience that aligns with it.
The interesting thing with Bill, and he admits this regularly, is that early in his life and career he was very angry, and that anger was misdirected and would manifest in his sets. Over time his sets became less about what he was angry about and more about his anger and where it came from. Along the road of his own self-reflection, his political worldview became more solidified. In recent years his sets have become about putting people in uncomfortable situations and forcing them to laugh at their own contradictions.
So it’s not a matter of me “rejecting materialism” or not being able to “see past the white man”, materialism isn’t always the right lens to look at a given subject. There is a dialectical relationship between a comedian’s identity that they project through their set and the demographics that make up their audience. When that identity within their set changes, it can become incongruous with the expectations of the audience if that demographic hasn’t shifted along with the identity.
A prime example of this would be the return of Dave Chappelle. His set had no evolution over time, it just had a many-year gap, and when he returned with this wildly different perspective from the one he had when he was younger, most of his audience rejected it. There wasn’t a graceful adaptation to this reaction on his part, and now I’m sure the demographic has realigned with his set, but not without much public scrutiny.
I think what makes Bill such a master craftsman is it seems clear to me that he understands this relationship between his comedy and his audience and regularly uses it against them with setups that betray the audience’s expectations, which in turn gets a laugh because now the audience is the butt of the joke.
Part of becoming an adult has been realizing nearly every celebrity is a horrible person
Some of them are good. Wallace Shawn and Danny DeVito have good politics, and Steve Buscemi was a volunteer firefighter who responded to 9/11. So the short and ugly ones maybe. Got that hobbit energy.
oh that’s why I have good politics
Tim Heidecker seems like a good egg. Mark Ruffalo seems ok as well.
Also weirdly Seth MacFarlane seems ok politically even though his shows are full of racism and transphobia and etc
Re: Seth MacFarlane. I’m sure his animated stuff fits that bill, but “The Orville” is a super progressive show. Last season featured an episode involving gender dysmorphia and essentially trans-rights (in space of course) that was wonderfully done.
It also had a direct comparison of the soviets to the nazis with that, this is just like the molotov ribbentrop, line. MacFarlane probably didn’t write it, but his character said it and its his show. I’d love to know what the hell he was thinking on that one.
Liberals are allergic to facts
To preface this, I have no idea who Seth MacFarlane is or what The Orville is so this isn’t a defence of anything like that.
MacFarlane might not have much choice. This is the political economic factor that Parenti emphasises in his two books on media.
If there’s any kind of board above MacFarlane, it’s likely populated by reactionaries who appoint each other. And they’ll allow some progressive themes but will insist on balancing out the message. Writers/producers/directors either toe the line or they’re dropped or the show is dropped or it’s made and never really aired or promoted. However progressive you are, you still end up headbutting the gatekeepers.
It’s probably unescapable in capitalist culture. I seen that hundreds of times in books of very varied genres in Poland, author write about something totally unrelated, then boom sudden random jab at communism, then back to the topic, like a fucking commercial in TV. It have no sense whatsoever in most cases but is so incredibly common that it has to be some editorial tip for having your book published easier.
Yeah The Orville is surprisingly good and the third season is basically like a a space war for trans rights
I don’t remember where but I read Mark Ruffalo’s brother was killed by the CIA and I choose to believe that
Danny DeVito having good politics is both heartwarming and hilarious.
Part of this realization goes in hand with the recognition that, overwhelmingly, nearly anyone who is anyone in media is related to someone rich and powerful.
I don’t even mean kids of movie stars or record producers cause that’s just the standard nepotism everyone knows about. I mean like a ton of famous people are at most one familial step removed from an influential political actor or business magnate who helped fund their career pursuit in some fashion. There’s definitely exceptions and you can find some with good politics regardless but it’s pretty wild to realize how much of our media is created by rich failsons.
Yeah this has been a realization too. Nearly everyone famous is some rich person’s nephew or daughter. It’s all a big country club.
We play a game at home when watching stuff where we will google actors in the thing we’re watching to see what their background is, and almost 99% of the time they come from a background like you mentioned.
🥺
Nearly!
Nearly
Will you sign my post?
Only if I get more big, annoying emojis of myself on Hexbear.
A horrible system promotes horrible people to its top.
deleted by creator
comedians in particular are awful people
The more famous the comedian, the more they reflect mainstream ideology. Look no further than the popular comedian of the moment to understand where the public mindset is. I wouldn’t be surprised if we get more Jeff-Dunham-racist-puppet acts soon.
I think it’s fun to contrast people like Tom Segura and Bill Burr. Tom for a long time had this outward appearance of a typical lib, riding the lines on acceptable speech. Bill for a long time had this outward appearance of an angry straight, white, male, capturing a similar audience to someone like Andrew Dice Clay. Now, Tom’s persona is full-on rich boy prick status, with direct disdain for the poor. Whereas now, Bill’s persona (especially if you listen to his podcast) is way more “woke” and left-leaning than he ever was. The SWM audience is still there and periodically writes into his podcast only to be laughed at by Bill for being misogynistic and weird. It’s clear he has some level of solidarity with working-class people.
Segura was always a piece of shit in love with himself, Billy blue balls didn’t change; the world did.
Comparing Burr to Dice Clay is a level of so completely fucking wrong I didn’t even know it existed so kudos I guess for that
Do you really believe in identity politics, and reject materialism so strongly you actually cannot see past “white man” ? You’re probably not alone in that I guess.
The intersection is the Opie and Anthony show. If you were around for that in the late 90’s 2000’s you’d see the comparison more
Andrew Dice Clay might as well have been an “Mens Rights” activist. His material’s only goal was to attract as many angry and alienated men and provide them with a “safe space” that reaffirmed their beliefs on WHO was the culprit of their alienation. He got as many laughs as he did men cheering, shouting, and generally expressing anger as a reaction to his jokes.
Bill attracted a similar kind of group, not because he was actively courting them, but because he WAS an angry white dude, and that anger was reflected in his act. His jokes about arguing with girlfriends or his frustration with the social “pass” he perceived women to have resonated with these folks and often it’s the only part of the act they recall. Even to this day they still show up in his orbit. In the last couple of episodes of his podcast, a fan wrote in with this long-winded story about his girlfriend and something she did that was driving him crazy, and how she never would hear him out or change her ways. It was clear he was fishing for Bill to tell him he was right, but his only response to the email was “Eh… Maybe you should take a look at yourself here, and figure out why you react that way to what she’s doing. Work on your own issues dude.”
Almost all mainstream comedy is rooted in Identity with rare exceptions. From the Redneck Comedy Tour to Silverman’s Jewish comedy, to the comedians with sets about the black experience. The degree to which they lean into their identity might vary from comedian to comedian but it is an ever-constant aspect of comedy. The population by and large is wrapped up in identity politics, so it is no wonder why when a comedian is speaking about their identity it attracts an audience that aligns with it.
The interesting thing with Bill, and he admits this regularly, is that early in his life and career he was very angry, and that anger was misdirected and would manifest in his sets. Over time his sets became less about what he was angry about and more about his anger and where it came from. Along the road of his own self-reflection, his political worldview became more solidified. In recent years his sets have become about putting people in uncomfortable situations and forcing them to laugh at their own contradictions.
So it’s not a matter of me “rejecting materialism” or not being able to “see past the white man”, materialism isn’t always the right lens to look at a given subject. There is a dialectical relationship between a comedian’s identity that they project through their set and the demographics that make up their audience. When that identity within their set changes, it can become incongruous with the expectations of the audience if that demographic hasn’t shifted along with the identity.
A prime example of this would be the return of Dave Chappelle. His set had no evolution over time, it just had a many-year gap, and when he returned with this wildly different perspective from the one he had when he was younger, most of his audience rejected it. There wasn’t a graceful adaptation to this reaction on his part, and now I’m sure the demographic has realigned with his set, but not without much public scrutiny.
I think what makes Bill such a master craftsman is it seems clear to me that he understands this relationship between his comedy and his audience and regularly uses it against them with setups that betray the audience’s expectations, which in turn gets a laugh because now the audience is the butt of the joke.
deleted by creator