Maureen Lipman says cancel culture could destroy comedy

[ArabellaScott]

Article on how 'cancel culture' is affecting comedy. Mentions Dave Chapelle, JK Rowling and others. Some pertinent points:

'nearly a third (29%) of people who hold gender critical views said they always or mostly don't say what they really think when they are talking about this controversial topic.'

No shit.

It would have been interesting to see how many people polled hold those views.

I didn't really share the story for Maureen's views, tbh! (No offense, Maureen). I thought the stats were interesting on 'gc' views.

And the arena of comedy struck me the other day as one where all of these issues seems to be running hot.

I think the thing that gets me is that it doesn't seem to be todays Bernard Manning equivalents who are the targets of 'cancel culture'. Frankie Boyle for instance.

Yep. Boyle came to mind. Some of the things he's said are beyond the pale. I'm not going to defend them. But he gets a free pass. Odd.

@ArabellaScott

I didn't really share the story for Maureen's views, tbh! (No offense, Maureen). I thought the stats were interesting on 'gc' views.

And the arena of comedy struck me the other day as one where all of these issues seems to be running hot.

Oh I know, just in relation to my previous post - there were plenty of 'top lines' in that report and her opinions weren't the big ones imo. Didn't realise she was still in Corrie so suppose she had the higher profile?

But then I think about the fact that Graham Linehan, whose ‘crime’ being gender critical, and who keeps his comedy and politics pretty separate, is being told to take his name off the credits of the Father Ted Musical

Told by whom?

I’d pull the whole fucking thing if I was him…but then I’m very vindictive

@ArabellaScott

Yep. Boyle came to mind. Some of the things he's said are beyond the pale. I'm not going to defend them. But he gets a free pass. Odd.

Yes, strange isn’t it? I never found Boyle overly offensive because it’s typical shock-jock stuff and I naturally assumed that, as a comedian, he wasn’t being serious. But he has been staggeringly hypocritical over the last few years, and his inability to give a shit about women when the going gets tough has made me think that he is just a massive sexist.

@RufustheFloralmissingreindeer

But then I think about the fact that Graham Linehan, whose ‘crime’ being gender critical, and who keeps his comedy and politics pretty separate, is being told to take his name off the credits of the Father Ted Musical

Told by whom?

I’d pull the whole fucking thing if I was him…but then I’m very vindictive

He was told by Hat Trick, the production company.

"[Russell Kane] told me it's "complete nonsense" that comedians are sacrificing being funny because they don't want to be cancelled. ... However, he does think he and his fellow comedians worry about being cancelled for things they might have said in the past which have since become less acceptable."
That's a right bit of cognitive dissonance right there. If you worry that what you've already done might get you cancelled, of course you're going to self-censor what you're doing now. You're going to sacrifice some material you would otherwise use, so yes, you are sacrificing being funny. And I do wonder about his thought-process, he seems to think if you're not self-censoring then you're indulging in 'hate speech'. It's not an either-or, mate.

I kind of get what Lipman means though with "Something has to be forbidden to make you laugh, really belly laugh." Transgressive rude comedy can have a shock factor that amplifies the joke. I've seen Jimmy Carr live a couple of times, some of his material definitely falls into that category. (And yes, I did belly laugh.) But there are other types of comedy, such as Tim Vine's one-liners, where he misleads you as to which definition of a key word he is using. Very clever, nothing 'forbidden', he uses surprise not shock - and I find him very funny.

There are different types of comedy. Some uses shock, some uses surprise.

(And for the record, I've seen Russell Kane live too, and I didn't find him that funny. Amusing, but not laugh-out-loud funny.)

[content warning] Boyle, to a woman in the audience of his show :

'His response to a female heckler was: “I’ll abuse you so badly your gynaecologist will think you’ve been in a f*ing car crash,” '

See, I think that, directed at a person, in real life, is not even slightly 'comedy'. That's out and out threatening, misogynist hate speech.

unherd.com/2018/04/come-misogynistic-frankie-boyle-suddenly-acceptable-now/

It's already destroyed.

I think it’s a real concern, because who is the arbiter of what’s allowed and what’s not? How about the not so distant past when Catholic bishops in Ireland could just make their quiet displeasure known and have theatres refuse to show plays? How about taking the piss out of Vladimir Putin? Or perhaps more relevant in the UK, one of the Middle East rulers?

You know the things you CAN'T tell jokes about are the truly unacceptable things.

Nobody for example wants to hear jokes about the sexual abuse or murder of children because it's truly unacceptable.
I don't want to hear dead migrant jokes either, but I do want to hear migrant jokes because that means they are part of society.
Expats are migrants too - it's not just people coming across the Channel.

Unfortunately, if you exclude a group from jokes, whether that is disabled people, women, transpeople or whoever, then you make those groups hated because they remove joy from the world but never add it.

I'm disabled.
I want to hear jokes about disabled people.
I'm a woman.
I want to hear jokes about women.

I can identify with the topics (not 100% of the time but often enough) & when I am included then I feel part of society.
We joke, sometimes quite cruelly but also in a way that touches people because there is often quite sharp observations on real life behind the point of a good joke, about the things that are part of our lives.
Life has cruel bits, without them good observational comedy cannot exist.
By doing so, we include.

When the mere fact of being a woman or disabled means I am an untouchable topic for a comic then I am excluded from normal comedy & society by extension.

Cancel culture is killing comedy & leaving a pale sad imitation of itself behind that means nothing & touches no one.

I'm not familiar with Boyle so skimmed the article. What he said was horrid and unfunny and I would never go to hear his act. However what actual harm does it cause? Presumably people who go to see him are familiar with his material. They are consenting adults. Do we think that misogynistic jokes will make the audience behave more misogynistically? I think his audience knows where the line is, which is why they find him funny.

I think going to a comedy show you may expect to hear comedy, and yes even edgy comedy, but not actual threats directed at you about sexual assault.

[quote ArabellaScott][content warning] Boyle, to a woman in the audience of his show :

'His response to a female heckler was: “I’ll abuse you so badly your gynaecologist will think you’ve been in a f*ing car crash,” '

See, I think that, directed at a person, in real life, is not even slightly 'comedy'. That's out and out threatening, misogynist hate speech.

unherd.com/2018/04/come-misogynistic-frankie-boyle-suddenly-acceptable-now/[/quote]
It's not funny because it's about the abuse of women by men, and he's a man directing what is essentially a threat, to a woman. Worse, he's doing it because the heckler made him feel inadequate and he wants her silenced. Probably a really common reason for lots of male on female abuse.

The topic of misogynist abuse should not be out of bounds in comedy. No topic should be. But when you tell this kind of joke, the oppressed party probably shouldn't be the but of the joke. Especially if they're not even the one telling the joke. And the way the joke is told shouldn't precisely mirror the pattern of the abuse, like the example above.

But if you go to see Frankie Boyle you are accepting you will hear material aimed at people with disabilities, women in general, women in the public eye…anyone he perceives weaker than him, basically. Why be shocked if he turns that on you?
I did go and see him years ago. 60% recycled material from Mock The Week, 20% personal insults at audience members and 20% really, really pushing the bounds of taste and decency. It was……interesting……but I wouldn’t go again.
He’s changed tack for his misogyny now anyway. Female guests on his shows, but only the ones who reflect back at him how great he is in all his TWAW glory.

Well, fair enough. I don't think telling a 'joke' that is indistinguishable from a threat is acceptable - and I'm pretty keen on free speech overall!

Re: Boyle's heckler. Do we know what did the female heckler said to him? Also, is this material popular with audiences or has the market place given him the message that the material is unfunny?

It’s not good to talk if you happen to be GC.

Having an ology these days in gender studies means you get to cancel mean old biology believers.

@Grimchmas

I am an amateur stand up. The world of comedy has been moving towards less offensive for a few years now and I think that's no bad thing. I don't want to hear jokes about dead migrants, and much though I'm gender critical I don't want to hear jokes at trans people's expense any more then I want to hear jokes about GC people.

This bit is utter bullshit;

"Something has to be forbidden to make you laugh, really belly laugh. It's when you shouldn't be laughing," she said. "All the things that have been cancelled out by being correct are, I'm afraid, all the things that make people laugh."

I also don't think it's that big a thing to hear that people self-censor themselves even they have viewpoints that go against the norms of the people they are in company with. TRAs have done an impressive job of making it seem like acceptance without exception is the social norm, when that's perhaps.. not accurate.

Yes it's a problem that women with GC views are unable to voice them for fear of being ostracised, criticised, and downright bullied and threatened. I just don't think this is an article that speaks to that very much.

I think it takes a lot more imagination, wit and intelligence to create comedy which isn't cruel.

John Finnemore for example- there's no swearing, no picking on people, no sexual innuendo.

Boyle is in the unfortunate position of his act being more unfunny than it is offensive.

Little offends me. If you're offensive and funny, I'll probably laugh. However, I won't laugh just because you're offensive: there has to be some wit or humour there.

Boyle could be a good comedian. I've heard good comic timing from him on radio panel shows, where his "routine" is not on show.

@wincarwoo

She's talking toot isn't she? I can't think what she could mean really.

My first thought was James Acaster and Michael McIntyre and concluded she's a deluded out of touch attention seeker. Why she would be given airspace on 8am BBC new I have no idea.

It sounds like you're saying she's old and past it, why listen to her? Pretty ageist, she's one of the most successful female comedians, with a career spanning decades.

I think her point is perfectly clear: people, especially comedians, are terrified of making a mistake, of saying something cancel-worthy. In today's climate an ill judged or even simply unpopular joke could end a career.

And as Russell Kane seems to think, that's not the same as allowing hate speech. I found his comments quite chilling and Orwellian actually. Why wouldn't you want to subscribe to the state sanctioned viewpoint eh? If you'll just be kind you have nothing to fear.

The point is, Russ, who gets to decide what is hate speech and what isnt? We all know that the masses on social media don't hold to the factual legal definition, it's anything that is unpopular. And once the message is out that you're using hate speech (even when you aren't) you will be tried and convicted by the twatter mob. Which is what Maureen is saying.

Free speech IS a minefield though. I thought Frankie Boyles response to the female heckler was disgusting. If misogyny was a hate crime, then that would be illegal. Imagine if he used a similar tactic on a black heckler and threatened them with lynching - would that be ok? The law says no. Why is it different when the less powerful person being threatened is a woman? There's nothing funny about sexual violence.

This is such an interesting and tricky area.

The stuff about people self censoring when with friends, family, work etc.

That's surely not new at all, at all unusual, and not a wow, really! Thing surely.

In our culture as well, certain topics are generally avoided in various contexts.

The well known 'never discuss politics or religion in polite company' thing Google tells me originated in a USA business etiquette guide from 1879.

Immigration, I mean. Not a topic to raise with anyone as v sensitive and even if roughly on same page, still likely to lead to disagreement/ arguing.

Politics/ anything to do with discrimination, minority groups, if you know you opinions are v definite and generally considered a bit extreme...

Would I start a conversation about patriarchal oppression, the continuing dominance of white privileged men especially older ones, just looking around it's obvious etc..

When with family including my dad- wealthy background, boarding school (from 7, implying that is privilege is... Well a topic in itself), medicine at Cambridge, pension bigger than my salary until I was about 45......?

Well no. I mean how would that go down?
(Those aren't my views much more nuanced which is another reason to avoid complex topics unless it right situation!).

I mean all the time we self censor.

Interestingly when it comes to people work fairly closely with, people I don't know that well, friends, family.... Blokey mates in pub...

When males in women's spaces comes up (and that's IME the main bit people are interested in), raised by others I don't as I know what I think.

It's been no disagreement, no arguments, total agreement. Each time.

So that's. Interesting...

That aside.

Yes there's a line between v close to line and over line with comedy.

Problem is where the line is, is different for everyone.
And different people have different thresholds for ok/funny, and just really nasty, for different topics.

IMO societal shift comes and comedy/ TV/ media/ etc shifts to the new social position.

Always will be a fair chunk who don't like shift, pc gorn mad, can't say anything any more etc. And they gripe and get resentful. And social norms - the widely accepted stuff- keeps shifting incrementally.

IF anything is pushed by one group to shift views. Much more resentment. Much more feeling of not being able to say anything any more.

This process is surely how it works though.

It's why mainstream TV no longer has scantily clad women whose job is to be eye candy and not talk all over the place.
Why comedies don't often involve young women's tops falling off in embarrassing circs (and it's so funny!).

It's why nasty stereotyping jokes about people who are Irish, Jewish, black, Pakistani, various 'types' of women/girls, lesbians, gay men etc, jokes which weren't funny the whole point was to laugh at the subject of joke. Are not mainstream any more.

Can't remember who said it (probably lots of people) but comedy really is the first line of defence against authoritarianism.

Kings used to have jesters who won poke fun at them and take the piss. They also at times acted as advisors. Only the genuine narcissists would dispense with a jester. Part of their role was to keep you human.

So it's no surprise that it's comedians (and writers and artists) who are being silenced now that we are entering this new age of authoritarianism.