Generational differences in perspective

[tenyari]

Generational differences also affect the types of music, videos, TV shows, movies, and what we read. It isn't just politics. I know people my age who don't look at anything (music, movies, TV shows) made before 1990, people younger than me, nothing before in the 2000s or 2010. Some older than me can't stand anything made (in all areas) after 1990. Knowledge of history is a lost art these days.

"Those dang kids and their loud devil music!" - Almost certainly said by some random Civil War veteran referring to the Charleston Dance.

Historically this stuff changed over the course of centuries so we didn't notice it. Since the radio, it seems to go in 10 year cycles. It'd probably go faster but corporations keep out some trends so they have enough time to make money on the one's they're selling. If they didn't, we'd be in an even more sorry and confused state (hey ma look; I just said something nice about capitalism, why are there flying pigs outside?). However Influencer culture seems to imply it could be changing almost daily if we "let it".

 

[Devinter]

Question, because I think location matters a ton:

What if you are a comedian by profession - either successful, or at least attempting to become successful - and you're up on a stage, in front of an audience, with the clear intention of making people laugh? Should that person then be restricted in what they can say? Punished if their joke flops, or is too harsh? Comedy is often right on the edge of where things get uncomfortable, and I believe that finding that edge takes a lot of practice, and even then, mistakes would happen every once and again. I personally cannot see how one could put severe restrictions on it and not hurt comedy as an artform.

Telling the same, or similar, jokes at work or something though.. That's.. Probably not so great.

 

[tenyari]

What if you are a comedian by profession - either successful, or at least attempting to become successful - and you're up on a stage, in front of an audience, with the clear intention of making people laugh?

I think a comedian needs to keep up with the social norms of the society they're operating in. What's funny here and today isn't over there and / or tomorrow.

With the Internet... it gets complicated because your audience can easily be out of your control and a lot of humor is not universal.

I don't think the modern form of stand up comedy - where you make insults at yourself or at different trends - will survive modern social media. I think we'll shift back to gags, skits, and situation comedy. Some of which will fail for the same reasons, and some of which will work.

Jokes like the old "who's on first?" - those can work anywhere people get the context. Skit comedy with a pie in the face and so on...

Insult comedy, even self deprecating comedy, now faces a global audience and social norms that have changed in the time between when you walked on stage and when you walked off.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

"Those dang kids and their loud devil music!" - Almost certainly said by some random Civil War veteran referring to the Charleston Dance.

Historically this stuff changed over the course of centuries so we didn't notice it. Since the radio, it seems to go in 10 year cycles. It'd probably go faster but corporations keep out some trends so they have enough time to make money on the one's they're selling. If they didn't, we'd be in an even more sorry and confused state (hey ma look; I just said something nice about capitalism, why are there flying pigs outside?). However Influencer culture seems to imply it could be changing almost daily if we "let it".

1440 - Guttenberg's press,
1803 - Telegraph and Morse Code,
<whole bunch of stuff that would take up way too much space>
1969 - ARPANET(forerunner of the internet)
1978 - First CBBS system created
1983 - AOL came on line
<another whole bunch of stuff that would take up way too much space>
X(itter), Instagram, Facebook, the list goes on...

This kind of stuff has been around since man invented language. What makes it so intense now is the speed of information dissemination and the availability of a ready audience of almost immeasurable size.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Question, because I think location matters a ton:

What if you are a comedian by profession - either successful, or at least attempting to become successful - and you're up on a stage, in front of an audience, with the clear intention of making people laugh? Should that person then be restricted in what they can say? Punished if their joke flops, or is too harsh? Comedy is often right on the edge of where things get uncomfortable, and I believe that finding that edge takes a lot of practice, and even then, mistakes would happen every once and again. I personally cannot see how one could put severe restrictions on it and not hurt comedy as an artform.

Telling the same, or similar, jokes at work or something though.. That's.. Probably not so great.

I think it’s pretty easy to determine intent. You can argue that any joke is by definition cruel. But there are some where the malice is entirely clear, where the intent is to belittle, not to raise a smile. To dehumanize, not to poke a finger at pomposity. To put people in their place (often the downtrodden) rather than to point out how ridiculous us humans are.

It goes to the concept of punching up, not down.

Making Hitler into a joke is subversive. Making concentration camps into a joke isn’t.

Emily

 

[Devinter]

I think a comedian needs to keep up with the social norms of the society they're operating in. What's funny here and today isn't over there and / or tomorrow.

With the Internet... it gets complicated because your audience can easily be out of your control and a lot of humor is not universal.

I don't think the modern form of stand up comedy - where you make insults at yourself or at different trends - will survive modern social media. I think we'll shift back to gags, skits, and situation comedy. Some of which will fail for the same reasons, and some of which will work.

Jokes like the old "who's on first?" - those can work anywhere people get the context. Skit comedy with a pie in the face and so on...

Insult comedy, even self deprecating comedy, now faces a global audience and social norms that have changed in the time between when you walked on stage and when you walked off.

Agreed. I believe that you are correct. However, I see this as an issue. The window of what's "allowed" is getting smaller. And I think it is extremely important to remember that laughter is healing. In a world where so much tragedy exists, people must be allowed to laugh at things. It's a way for a lot of people to, quite frankly, cope with all the misery that surrounds them - both up close and personal, and on the news. Reducing laughter in your life is proven to have a negative effect on a persons mood overall.

If you are at a comedy club, out of your own free will, and you aren't enjoying the show then you have the possibility to walk out. Almost always, your money will be refunded if you ask for it as well. And then you can choose never to go see that comic again. It's not cancel culture, it's capitalism.

Comedians that only cater to a very small group of people struggle to pay rent. It's an incredibly difficult profession to find success in. So they constantly have to adapt; It's part of the game. However, as long as - say - 95% of the room is laughing, isn't the comedian doing their job? No joke will please every person in the audience.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I think it’s pretty easy to determine intent. You can argue that any joke is by definition cruel. But there are some where the malice is entirely clear, where the intent is to belittle, not to raise a smile. To dehumanize, not to poke a finger at pomposity. To put people in their place (often the downtrodden) rather than to point out how ridiculous us humans are.

It goes to the concept of punching up, not down.

Making Hitler into a joke is subversive. Making concentration camps into a joke isn’t.

Emily

Context also comes into play. I have an acquaintance that loves to tell a lottery joke about his cousin Luigi complaining to God. The joke is very funny; "Buy a ticket..."
He can tell it as is because he's Italian. I have to make modifications because I am not and using Luigi would be racist and demeaning. Growing up where I did, I can use my cousin Bubba, but not Luigi.

Doesn't have anything to do with intent, so to speak. Both of us enjoy a good joke, but we have to tell it differently because of how telling it is perceived based on our personal context.

It's a radical example, and not one I'd imagine would ever happen, but a survivor of Auschwitz would have a better chance of making a joke abut that experience and getting away with it than pretty much anyone else.

 

[tenyari]

If you are at a comedy club, out of your own free will, and you aren't enjoying the show then you have the possibility to walk out. Almost always, your money will be refunded if you ask for it as well. And then you can choose never to go see that comic again. It's not cancel culture, it's capitalism.

The problem the comedian faces is that 9/10th of the audience is probably holding their phones up and broadcasting the act...

People no longer participate in their own lives... They record them so other people can live their life, and then they watch someone else's instead of their own.

Reality has become the Truman Show where he's filming himself and then watching 'Survivor' where the whole cast just sits there and watches him.

 

[Devinter]

It's a radical example, and not one I'd imagine would ever happen, but a survivor of Auschwitz would have a better chance of making a joke abut that experience and getting away with it than pretty much anyone else.

It did happen. Some survivors went on to do comedy. The truth is, many people who have suffered immense trauma need some sort of outlet for dealing with it - and furthermore, the vast majority of comedians that are successful today are struggling with something. The person cracking the most jokes at a party is not seldom the person with the most inner demons. Not always, of course - and not every successful comedian has depression or trauma or a mental illness of some kind either - but it's incredibly common. It's called - rather unfortunately - the Sad Clown Paradox.

 

[EmilyMiller]

It did happen. Some survivors went on to do comedy. The truth is, many people who have suffered immense trauma need some sort of outlet for dealing with it - and furthermore, the vast majority of comedians that are successful today are struggling with something. The person cracking the most jokes at a party is not seldom the person with the most inner demons. Not always, of course - and not every successful comedian has depression or trauma or a mental illness of some kind either - but it's incredibly common. It's called - rather unfortunately - the Sad Clown Paradox.

This is why I have no problem with rape victims writing non-con stories. It’s their experience and their right to process it however they see fit. But the fact that some victims do this is zero justification for people who have never felt the terror and the existential threat to their body and psyche doing the same.

If a holocaust survivor makes jokes to help them come to terms with the horror and continue living, surely that justifies me making jokes about gas chambers? No it fucking doesn’t.

Emily

 

[Devinter]

This is why I have no problem with rape victims writing non-con stories. It’s their experience and their right to process it however they see fit. But the fact that some victims do this is zero justification for people who have never felt the terror and the existential threat to their body and psyche doing the same.

If a holocaust survivor makes jokes to help them come to terms with the horror and continue living, surely that justifies me making jokes about gas chambers? No it fucking doesn’t.

Emily

No, I agree with you there. I just find it hard to figure out where to draw the lines. And I know this, from a whole lot of experience; If you have a person that is suffering, and they're a creative person, and they have an outlet for their emotions through writing, painting, making music, doing comedy, whatever it may be.. Then it is a net positive not only for them, but for society as a whole, to encourage them to pursue it. Because at the end of the day, it boils down to peoples well being. You could argue: "But what about the people in the audience? What about their well being?" - but they don't have to be there. The person telling the jokes.. Well.. They might not have as much of a choice as it may seem outwardly. Their other option might be to suffer silently. And this causes a ripple effect into other areas of their life, affecting those around them.

 

[gacor]

I would say it boils down to two things. Empathy and know your audience. I don’t think it’s wrong to make very dark jokes when you are in a group of people that you know will take it the right way.

Surprises are a huge element of humor, and a savage punchline can be funny in the right context. The key here is that everyone involved understands it is a joke, and that you are not actually making fun of a tragedy/the sensitive topic, but rather using it as a vehicle for humor. When you cannot be sure this is the case, you should probably hold your tongue. And this where empathy comes in. You should not tell cancer jokes to a person who lost someone close to cancer, unless you are certain they don’t mind. Be aware of the situation you are in, and if your joke is going to make people laugh or cause pain, and act accordingly. Causing a few laughs is not worth hurting someone.

All of this is meant to be taken in an everyday life setting. Movies, tv or live shows are a whole other topic, and one I would need to think carefully about before speaking about it.

 

[EmilyMiller]

No, I agree with you there. I just find it hard to figure out where to draw the lines. And I know this, from a whole lot of experience; If you have a person that is suffering, and they're a creative person, and they have an outlet for their emotions through writing, painting, making music, doing comedy, whatever it may be.. Then it is a net positive not only for them, but for society as a whole, to encourage them to pursue it. Because at the end of the day, it boils down to peoples well being. You could argue: "But what about the people in the audience? What about their well being?" - but they don't have to be there. The person telling the jokes.. Well.. They might not have as much of a choice as it may seem outwardly. Their other option might be to suffer silently. And this causes a ripple effect into other areas of their life, affecting those around them.

I get that line-drawing is both hard and subjective. But I also know that some things are so obviously fueled by ill-intent that the line is essentially irrelevant.

To make a point against “my people,” I thought that Kathy Griffin was way past that line.

Emily

 

[Devinter]

I get that line-drawing is both hard and subjective. But I also know that some things are so obviously fueled by ill-intent that the line is essentially irrelevant.

To make a point against “my people,” I thought that Kathy Griffin was way past that line.

Emily

I am strictly against any action fueled by ill-intent.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

No, I agree with you there. I just find it hard to figure out where to draw the lines. And I know this, from a whole lot of experience; If you have a person that is suffering, and they're a creative person, and they have an outlet for their emotions through writing, painting, making music, doing comedy, whatever it may be.. Then it is a net positive not only for them, but for society as a whole, to encourage them to pursue it. Because at the end of the day, it boils down to peoples well being. You could argue: "But what about the people in the audience? What about their well being?" - but they don't have to be there. The person telling the jokes.. Well.. They might not have as much of a choice as it may seem outwardly. Their other option might be to suffer silently. And this causes a ripple effect into other areas of their life, affecting those around them.

All you can do is your best and temper that with the realization that someone being offended by what you say or write is basically a choice that you have zero control over. What you say can seem like the most benign thing in the world to you, but someone can choose to be offended by it.

Because of my personal history, I take offense at being called Miss Shelby. It goes back to the way a certain group of people spoke to my grandfather who was a racist, sexist, misogynistic, racist piece pf shit. It's a southern thing common from Texas to Virginia, but when I hear it, it makes my skin crawl because of what I associate with it. Me being offended is on me, not the person calling me Miss Shelby. Where it becomes their fault, their issue is when i ask them not to call me that and they do it again. There are far more egregious things that can cause far more hurt than just being called something that reminds you of you families racist past. Some I've experienced(nod to @EmilyMiller. Those wounds never heal.) most I haven't. The concept is the same and I feel it's wrong for me to choose to take offense at something you may say or write without the understanding that that being offended is a choice I am making.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I suppose I agree… I’m older, but don’t understand the first one. So non-con is ok toward younger generation?

The question (not point) was whether what my generation calls assault might be called seduction by some people in older generations.

Emily

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

The question (not point) was whether what my generation calls assault might be called seduction by some people in older generations.

Emily

Not sure that's generational. There are people out there today that will get someone drunk and call it seduction. People like that can be very creative in justifying their actions regardless of generation.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I don’t like that at all. I’m 52 and would never try anything unless it was mutual.

That's because you're a decent person. There are some real scumbags out there that will do almost anything and then find a way to justify it. They scome in all ages, shapes and sizes.

 

[SimonDoom]

Not sure that's generational. There are people out there today that will get someone drunk and call it seduction. People like that can be very creative in justifying their actions regardless of generation.

Based on my comparison of my memories from my time in college with what my daughter has told me about her experiences, things haven't changed at all in 35 years.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Based on my comparison of my memories from my time in college with what my daughter has told me about her experiences, things haven't changed at all in 35 years.

So much more succinct than the novella I wrote above. Thanks.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

She was hit by a total straw-man argument, unconnected to the previously polite discussions. If she chose to disengage at that point, then more power to her.

Asking for clarification is not a straw man argument. It isn't even an argument.

There is no argument here. It's a question and a prompt for clarification. Please show me otherwise.

Standing up to what specifically?

Simon did not advocate racism or rape or anything else of that nature.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

This is why I have no problem with rape victims writing non-con stories. It’s their experience and their right to process it however they see fit. But the fact that some victims do this is zero justification for people who have never felt the terror and the existential threat to their body and psyche doing the same.

Bullshit. I've never been raped. I can write about it. I have written about it and been praised for the realistic portrayal of the victim. I know people who have been raped. I care about people who have been raped. I can tell their story.

The last WWI vet died a few years ago. So you're effectively saying that no one on this Earth is qualified to write about the horrors of the Great War. No one should be writing about the horrors of the crusades nor the Spanish Inquisition, neither. I know that you don't mean that, but it just demonstrates how you clearly haven't thought this through.

 

[SimonDoom]

This is why I have no problem with rape victims writing non-con stories. It’s their experience and their right to process it however they see fit. But the fact that some victims do this is zero justification for people who have never felt the terror and the existential threat to their body and psyche doing the same.

If a holocaust survivor makes jokes to help them come to terms with the horror and continue living, surely that justifies me making jokes about gas chambers? No it fucking doesn’t.

Emily

If you're curious about generational differences, this is one. I cannot emphasize how strongly I disagree with the view that victimhood entitles one to write about subjects that others cannot. The notion that one's background, race, sex, gender, victimhood, etc. has something to do with one's right to express an opinion, or write a story, is a view that your generation takes more seriously than mine. I don't take it at all seriously. I think it's a terrible view. I think it's anti-intellectual and unethical.

 

[EmilyMiller]

If you're curious about generational differences, this is one. I cannot emphasize how strongly I disagree with the view that victimhood entitles one to write about subjects that others cannot. The notion that one's background, race, sex, gender, victimhood, etc. has something to do with one's right to express an opinion, or write a story, is a view that your generation takes more seriously than mine. I don't take it at all seriously. I think it's a terrible view. I think it's anti-intellectual and unethical.

As I said all the way up there, I don’t think I’m going to change your position. It goes both ways.

I don’t know why you bundled background, race, sex and gender into your argument as I didn’t mention any of those. Maybe your argument needed bolstering, only you will know.

But yes, I am implacably opposed to people getting sexual gratification through the traumatic suffering of others. And no it doesn’t matter if the suffering is real or not. The concept is morally bankrupt.

But - as I say - you think what you think.

We are at an impasse again and no amount of outrage at the other’s position is going to change that.

I think I’m right, you think you’re right.

Not a lot else to say.

Emily

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

If you're curious about generational differences, this is one. I cannot emphasize how strongly I disagree with the view that victimhood entitles one to write about subjects that others cannot. The notion that one's background, race, sex, gender, victimhood, etc. has something to do with one's right to express an opinion, or write a story, is a view that your generation takes more seriously than mine. I don't take it at all seriously. I think it's a terrible view. I think it's anti-intellectual and unethical.

Of course you can. The caveat is that you take the time and make the effort to be true to the subject. It’s a slippery slope we’re dancing on, but I feel, especially when it comes to dire topics like NC, topics that can have so much personal baggage, a cavalier approach is ill advised at best and dangerous at worst.