st. alphonzo

Comments from st. alphonzo

Dear Gabe, Videogum is for good; it shouldn't be abused as your personal soapbox. Especially when all you do is lump logical fallacies atop the targets you don't like, then turn round and call it all objective fact. Every little nit pick in this article was so obnoxious, and for what purpose? Certainly not for comedy. It's mostly just you complaining, without any jokes at all. I can usually predict when one of your videogum articles is going to blow. It's when you don't even bother to make jokes and just bitch for a paragraph about your self important opinion, hyped up as something worth reading. At least add jokes that people who don't agree with you will still appreciate. We all get you hate Gervais - scouring every detail of his interview for flaws and bullshit to write about just seems superfluous. It usually just seems like you blow shit out of proportion. Like when Jamie Foxx said Miley Cyrus should do porn. Who gives a fuck? It was an obviously facetious comment. Pretending it was completely serious and then crucifying Fox for it just makes no sense. Double goes for Gervais and his sanctimonious blathering. So before you go and call the "self-satisfied, delusional, mean-spirited, unfunny, power-mad" kettle black, make sure said article doesn't itself contain self-satisfied, delusional, unfunny tripe. P.S. Yes, I am aware of the irony in me posting a self-satisfied and unfunny message.
+2 |
January 15, 2012 on Duh Aficionado Magazine: Ricky Gervais Is An Asshole
You are all eating up this 'study' as unquestioningly, and with the same self sure ignorance, as the neo-con stooges you ironically feel a sense of superiority over. That's what's really funny
-4 |
November 23, 2011 on Is FOX News Worse Than No News At All?
yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
+1 |
March 14, 2011 on Saturday Night Live Open Thread
@Mans, doesn't the type of joke determine how rationally we approach its understanding? Your overview leaves no room for subtle, ironic, understated or other less obtuse forms of humor that don't only trigger on one, base level. Surely you don't ascribe to a Freudian construct of humor, wherein all jokes we find humorous achieve their status by virtue of their resonance with our subconscious? Because Freud was an asshat. Racist jokes for example, can be funny to me in certain circumstances. Actual racist beliefs are outdated, small minded, and repugnant, but if a comedian tells an exaggeratedly racist joke, it often leaves the impression that the racist, not the race, is actually being mocked. Take Chapelle's sketch 'The Black White Supremacist', as just one example of this. According to your analysis, any one who laughs at Clayton Biggsbys' racial screeds is subconsciously identifying with his views. Irrespective of context, jokes tend to lose all of their humor, and in the case of the Chappelle skit, all meaning completely. I am familiar with the idea of 'enlightened sexism/racism', which I am sure proponents of said idea could accuse me of. They would probably frown at my, for another example, laughing at overtly sexist comments made by characters on Mad Men. But that would be ludicrous, because it ignores all context, and insists that there is only one way to take a joke. There's undeniable humor in the misogynists of Mad Men, because they are so sure of such obviously wrong and stupidly held beliefs. The satire has existed for centuries. How on earth could you appreciate satirical humor without context? There's no way all responses to jokes occur on a subliminal level, because in many situations the full structure of a joke is two or three layers: context is so crucial to our understanding of humor that separating it from the reactions it produces seems impossible. As for SNL, it had several high points, with less lows than the usual episode this season. I agree that the prison rape sketch was a one-trick pony, and a not too funny one, at that. However, I feel as though the OP and most of the more serious comments here completely focused on the punch lines without acknowledging the context. These things are of course subjective, but to me the joke was in how hokey and self-important Keenan's character was, not really what he said. To call it offensive is about the thinnest-skinned response imaginable, and it ignores all but one facet of the skit (not that it was that deep of a sketch or anything, my argument here applies more generally) the fact is people crack non-PC jokes all the time in 'real life', risque/ 'edgy' humor can be just as valid as high brow gags, sometimes even funnier, and that all reductionist, essentialist narrowing down does is kill all humor in a joke, it makes pretend people don't have the conversations and harmless jokes that they actually do, and pressures people at large into the dominant discourse where nobody gets their feelings hurt but nobody is allowed to laugh, either.
+4 |
March 14, 2011 on Saturday Night Live Open Thread