Jerry Sadowitz

[Bearsinmotion]

Is anyone following this?

Really strange - the Pleasance theatre have cancelled Jerry Sadowitz’s show at the fringe, citing audience walkouts and complaints of extreme misogyny and racism. But have not quoted what was said that was so offensive even to him. Both Sadowitz and people who were there have questioned the walkouts. The show had many, many warnings about offensive content, and that he was going to be getting his cock out, which he did, as do other comedians at the Fringe.

there are a few comedians supporting him on Twitter, around the defence of free speech. But what stood out to me in the language was that audience members felt “unsafe,” yet I have not seen a single person say that was them. Graham Linehan has written about it here. Just wondering if it was related to the TRA frenzy as Glinner implies, with manufactured outrage or whether Sadowitz genuinely went too far this time.

I used to love Jerry back in the day, and he was one of the few calling out Jimmy Saville when it counted, so I want to believe he’s not been targeted for once again calling out those doing real harm…

That new statement from the Pleasance is more slippery than a slippery thing.
Translation : we were fine with JS until student staff threatened to walk. So we jumped to cancel before we were pushed. Our 'values', when it comes down to it, are commercially driven.

A named, genuine audience member at last!

Stewart Lee is only mentioned, not interviewed and it says he refused to comment on JS. It mentions "young staff" leaving (Lee's?) show "who weren't offended but didn't enjoy the show".

Also poses the question whether it was audience or staff that promoted what has happened.

Well, presumably he exposed himself to the theatre as part of his act. Which by all accounts isn't uncommon at the Edinburgh Fringe. If he has used his act to sexually assault or harass a woman I would obviously be critical of that (and presumably the police will be involved if that is the case.) Until then I will assume that exposing his penis was part of his act. Unless I've missed it (which is possible) the theatre haven't said that him exposing his penis is why the show was cancelled. They have said it's because its content was “extreme in its racism, sexism, homophobia and misogyny,”. As pp above mentioned they have then gone on to explain away their own hypocrisy: “In a changing world, stories and language that were once accepted on stage, whether performed in character or not, need to be challenged. There is a line that we will not cross at the Pleasance, and it was our view that this line was crossed on this occasion,”. Personally I don't think that either JS or RCB should have been cancelled due to a few people reporting that they feel "unsafe" and "uncomfortable".

Of course Stewart Lee didnt comment. He has too many wokebro points and potential income at stake. He really is a total chicken shit. Richard Herring on the other hand has made some really insightful comment on JS. He appears tk both have balls and brains.

Apologies, read the article quickly and misremembered.

Sadowitz's statement says he was not aware of any walk-outs, so someon is being economical with le realite...

Wow, pleasantly surprised at that BBC article!

I guess the Pleasance have to be careful not to narrow their options too much. They've already narrowed them a fair bit by saying that racism, homophobia, sexism and mysogyny (and by that I'm assuming they mean jokes that could be perceived to be racist, homophobic, sexist and misogynistic) do not align with their values. This must remove quite a few acts from performing there. If they throw nudity into the mix they could go bankrupt. Seems like a very odd statement for a comedy venue.

JS appeared in Stewart Lees first series of Comedy Vehicle, channelling someone with the same initials in a skit about someone who granted wishes.

(If I remember the episode it would have been "upsetting" if you were a full on Catholic type person.)

Afterthought, Grabby - if I read it correctly (it wasn't quite clear) - the "young staff" didn't like or get Lee's material either.

Whatever you think of him, you have to listen, engage your brain and pay attention for the payoff of his act. Is it a generational shift, that they don't have the time or inclination to take that on board these days before judging? Does this mean even the likes of Lee can't escape the crosshairs?

Its about time some wokebros got hoisted by their own petard.

LOJ got a taste of it when the TRAs turned on him.

Now, lets see what happens when the zealots go after the likes of Lee and Boyle, who, despite being clearly very influenced by JS, have been utterly silent on him being censored.

First they come for Jerry Sadowich...

Well, from the most recent comments, including (finally!) a named, verified audience member, it seems clear that the audience were not the ones complaining, but the staff.

I don't have huge amounts of sympathy with people choosing to work at a very famous comedy venue (I imagine a dream job for comedy fans) - but only if they can censor what comedy shows they work on. That's not how it works. I once worked at a very famous music venue. On a good day, I got to see Bob Dylan for free. On a bad day, I was forced to listen to whichever shite but popular band was on. I didn't get to cancel the band and piss off all the fans just because I hated the music (and yes, plenty of music has lyrics that are extremely misogynistic, homophobic, racist etc).

I also have ABSOLUTELY NO PATIENCE with people who use the word 'unsafe' when they mean 'upset' - THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Staff were not 'unsafe' because a comedian used offensive language, they were hurt, or shocked, or scandalised. But 'unsafe'? No. They were in a nice indoor venue with other staff around. And doors they could walk out of if it all got too much.

Let's leave 'unsafe' for all those many cases where people are actually physically attacked or threatened with attack. Like JK Rowling, for example, who was getting (yet another) a death threat the same weekend this was all happening. Which Twitter was refusing to even take down let alone ban the poster.

To all those wondering why this is on the feminist board, why a bunch of feminists care about the cancellation of a comedian most of us have never seen, this is why. We are absolutely sick to the back teeth of no action being taken when women are sent death and rape threats, doxxed and attacked, again and again and again. But the same people who given't give a toss about that are up in arms because a famously rude comedian with a history of being rude, who advertises not to attend his shows if you don't like rudeness or are easily shocked, was rude (exactly as advertised) in his show.

Arguably, given Sadowitz's publicity material, I think the audience would have had grounds for complaining if Sadowitz hadn't been rude, and hadn't got his dick out. Because it's completely clear that anyone attending his shows not only knows that, but that's why they go. No-one attends his shows because they fancy a bit of light whimsy a la Eddie Izzard. They go because they want to be challenged, shocked, and outraged (in a good way).

And if the staff in the venue can't hack working at all the slots on the bill, they're in the wrong job.

@xxyzz very well and passionately said. 👏👏👏👏

Quality post, xxyzz. Especially the bit about people claiming to feel unsafe.

The Guardian's comedy critic has waded in rather pathetically and predictably:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/16/jerry-sadowitz-cancelled-show-comedy-free-speech

I read that Guardian article, so wishy-washy.

RCB was discussed a lot in AIBU and chat at the time.

I think a lot of people had opinions on the matter that could be summarised as follows: "I don't want him banned, and I won't sign a petition to ban his shows. Definitely not going to his show myself, though".

Stiches - that may be the case. Neverthless, if you have accepted a job at a venue during the Edinburgh Fringe, I refuse to believe you don't know you're going to get a random mix of events on.

And the responsibility for ensuring the staff's wellbeing is not Jerry Sadowitz's - as the Pleasance implies - it's theirs. If they know they have a famously outrageous comedian coming up at the venue they manage, it is their responsibility to make sure their staff are suitably prepared and aware of what's coming (or arrange flexibility of shifts if staff really can't cope).

If the Pleasance - who have been quite happy to make money off hosting Sadowitz for countless years - are going to make a commitment not just to host Sadowitz (who I'm 100% sure could find an alternative venue if the Pleasance refused) but also to the audience members who will have bought the tickets in advance, then they have a duty to do any due diligence before the show, not to cancel it mid-run with just hours to go before the second show.

The victims in this who have been entirely forgotten are the audience members for night 2, who had hardly any notice that the show was being cancelled. I saw at least one post on Twitter from someone who'd posted about having flown in from (I think) Belgium, and was looking forward to the event, leading to comments on Twitter along the lines of 'Shall I tell him or will you?' Even if you get a refund, if you've booked hotel, travel etc, then you're still going to be out of pocket.

The other main victim in this is perspective. I will post below on this. But I for one don't want to move to a world where a rude comedian is banned for being non-specifically 'misogynistic, racist, homophobic'. When Frankie Boyle, as we all know, makes unbelievably misogynistic, offensive comments about raping a named woman, he gets to keep his BBC slots and his Guardian columns, and is even labelled as 'progressive'.😡If Safowitz genuinely said anything even a fraction as dangerous and offensive as that, which was widely quoted, I want to see the exact quote of what Sadowitz said that was so much worse, that his show needed immediate cancellation, not even a trigger warning, change of a particular word, etc.

Otherwise, sorry, I am not going to take the word of what appears to be a bunch of students. I am not a free-speech absolutist (unlike say some US right-wingers) - I do believe that where there are actual threats of violence then yes, there is no right to free speech. And the law is quite clear on this. But I don't think that decisions on Sadowitz's 'guilt' and 'punishment' should be taken behind closed doors by some random offended students. Any more than I think that JK Rowling should be found 'guilty' by random people on the internet and 'punished' for it by those who dislike her pro-women stance. This affects everyone, whatever views you hold. If some self-selected moral 'elite' can rule on one person's guilt without needing to give any objective rationale, then they can do it to anyone.

And that's not progressive. And it's not democratic. It's authoritarian. It's regressive. And it potentially provides cover for the very opposite of what it claims.

And the responsibility for ensuring the staff's wellbeing is not Jerry Sadowitz's - as the Pleasance implies - it's theirs.

A fact I noted yesterday - and the implications of the Pleasance (now) tying to reverse ferret and say they had no idea what the act would involve. Quite a nice public admission of a abrogation of duty of care that a court can factor into their damages award. Certainly suggests the big brains weren't in the room for that decision. Not that I thought they were anyway.

Sadly, what with actions speaking louder than words and all that, the lack of any action by the Pleasance against JS to recoup their losses says it all.

You tend to assume everyone thinks and feels like you do.

If a show says 18+ it could contain all kinds of things, potentially. You don't like seeing a penis but don't mind a performer talking about her rape, I don't care about seeing a penis - enough so that I don't find them funny either, but I really don't want to hear about a performer's personal trauma - I find it pretty invasive.

If I go to a show with adult content, I might see either so if I want to avoid it I probably shouldn't just appear at a show without looking into it.

A nudity waning is fine, as I suppose would be a personal trauma warning, but in the end those things are easy enough to add if the audience is really feeling that they are not seeing what they expect, and the performances could continue. It doesn't explain at all what has happened in this instance. There is something else going on here.

My observation has been that a lot of the younger generation who accept this stuff are extremely literal and also superstitious. They treat taboo words as if they are bad magic, context is irrelevant. You get canceled for using a racial slur against someone, also for saying the word talking about the incident, or writing an article about it, etc. They do not understand irony. They do not see layers of meaning. They do not understand the idea of people acting in character. In stories the bad people need to be clearly identified as bad and punished, etc. They are completely unaware that it is possible to frame issues in different ways. They cannot see anything from another persons point of view.

It's bloody scary.

I just can't picture that as an adult you could volunteer for something like this, without any caveats (I will only work on things designated as ok for families, say) and not expect that you could see something you won't like. Be it language, scatological humour, nudity, menstrual blood, shit, or people sharing their idiotic thoughts about life.

Don't ask how but here are 15 minutes of unedited JS from years ago if anyone wants to know what he is on about.

WARNING - obviously very offensive don't listen if you are easily offended.

They treat taboo words as if they are bad magic, context is irrelevant.

Yes, bang on.