←back to thread

395 points url | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.929s | source
Show context
svat ◴[] No.43800230[source]
Loved the fact that this post didn't go where I expected it to (or at least, didn't remain there). That a book like this probably wouldn't be published today, or would be less popular today, is a point that has been made many times by many people, about many different books, TV shows, jokes, etc. But the author actually moves on from there; the observation is that even in his own opinion, the same joke isn't funny today — in fact, the equivalent thing being done today just looks “grubby”.

So it's something deeper than the usual “political correctness” debate: the question really is, what is it about the world today that trumps the hallowed British traditions of celebrating failure, of moaning, of affectionate self-mockery? Why isn't the joke funny any more, or why doesn't the mocking seem affectionate?

(He points at the malaise that exists today—it was only funny when there was some hope—but I'm not sure that's the only answer…)

replies(7): >>43801343 #>>43801861 #>>43802077 #>>43802150 #>>43803767 #>>43804458 #>>43819962 #
karlgkk ◴[] No.43801343[source]
Often when someone, especially a comedian, complains about “political correctness”, what they actually mean is: nobody is laughing at the same joke I told 20 years ago

Sensibilities change. The sense of what is and isn’t punching down changes. Even the appetite for punching down changes.

People who whine about “PC” always pretend like it’s the death of comedy or speech or whatever, and yet… there are younger people building great careers!

And yes, there is a real worrying erosion of free speech - but 98% these people could keep saying exactly what they’ve been saying - they’re just not getting the laughs they think they’re entitled to.

replies(5): >>43801735 #>>43802041 #>>43803499 #>>43806364 #>>43819977 #
clown_strike ◴[] No.43806364[source]
> Often when someone, especially a comedian, complains about “political correctness”, what they actually mean is: nobody is laughing at the same joke I told 20 years ago

Don't rephrase others' sentiments to suit your own narrative. Soothsayers are bullshitters.

When comedians complain about political correctness, there is no alternate meaning. They are upset that they can't tell the same jokes they told 20 years ago, to the same audiences from 20 years ago that continue to enjoy them, because external forces mob, heckle, and harass them so they cannot serve their customers...

...which conveniently provides opportunities for those younger people to "build great careers," by eliminating all legacy competition.

In any other context it'd be driving the local kebab shop owner out of town because someone with influence wants to open a salad bar in its place.

It's mob rule, not "social justice."

replies(4): >>43806457 #>>43806725 #>>43807824 #>>43810301 #
djeastm ◴[] No.43806725[source]
>mob rule

Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved it's not. It's just a critical mass of people having opinions you don't like and voicing those opinions.

If the market of ideas decides your ideas are not valuable anymore for whatever reason you're going to suffer what scarcity feels like.

replies(1): >>43807092 #
StopDisinfo910 ◴[] No.43807092[source]
> Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved

Last time I checked the mob called for these people lives to be destroyed by asking for them to lose all possibility of ever having a job and threatening anyone who would employ them or support them of dire repercussions while slapping themselves in the back for what a positive impact they made.

So yes, it’s very much about threat of violence.

replies(2): >>43807832 #>>43811382 #
1. karlgkk ◴[] No.43807832[source]
Is it violence?

describes something non violent

This is violence!

replies(2): >>43828867 #>>43830347 #
2. oasisaimlessly ◴[] No.43828867[source]
Getting someone's home foreclosed is just SWATing them in slow-motion.
3. StopDisinfo910 ◴[] No.43830347[source]
Putting pressure on people in order to destroy someone life definitely is violence, yes, especially considering the point is preventing someone from having the capacity to have a livelihood. Pushed to its logical conclusion, if it worked perfectly, it's more or less murder (or ostrasism if you want to be nice but as some vocal opponents are openly implying murder would be okay I feel founded in saying it is murder).

Violence is not limited to physical violence. The fact that this apparently eludes some is probably the most worrying part of the current American trend and I think in no small part responsible for the sorry state of the country.