These people aren't riling up the audience. They're riling up people the audience doesn't like.
Also, I'm ok with comedy being "mean", so long as the target deserves it and it's delivered in a witty way. Too many "edgy" comedians are just recycling the same joke, which runs counter to the idea that comedy is the Subversion of Expectations.
It was incredibly depressing that his openers (his "Solo cup boys") made homophobic jokes. One in particular was about how the comedian would be disappointed if his son was gay because he couldn't take him to the strip club with him.
Sorry that people aren't receptive to shitty, bigoted jokes any more Kevin. Maybe you and Dave Chappelle can get together and make jokes about trans/gay people to empty audiences.
Or in terms that you're more familiar with, "you 'gon learn today!'
One in particular was about how the comedian would be disappointed if his son was gay because he couldn’t take him to the strip club with him.
The premise could have worked if he switched it around and said that he was going to have to go to gay strip club or Chippendale's or something instead of being a complaint about not being able to go to his usual clubs. That would have made it supportive and accepting of his son while also highlighting his personal hangups.
If your humor is based on punching down then fuck off, life is shitty enough as it is for most people without having a multi millionaire laughing at them.
Uh ya might want to look up the term 'hollywood elite', what it refers to, then pick another phrase. 'Overpaid egoists perpetually high on their own farts' is a good one
Kevin Hart aside (I'll let others talk about what they like or dislike about him) -
I don't know how anyone thinks that the hollywood "elite" are comedy friendly. I don't know any celebrities right now that can take a joke about themselves. Either lighthearted or a good ribbing, I just see every one of them being upset and pouty. Sure they'll laugh at others, but to each one of them they're untouchable when it comes to jokes.
Personally I liked the humor, for me it humanizes them and it's like "Okay let's ground this thing in some reality before we make you feel like you're the most important people on the planet", but of course god forbid they remember they're just like us.
My only rebuttal to this, is the whitehouse correspondance dinner. That's the whole point of comedy.
Jeselnik said something to this point when he mentioned the Boston marathon bombing. What's funny about the bombing, nothing. But that's why there comedians who can find humor in the darkest of places.
Dark comedy still exists, but the lazy comedy stylings of my 50 yo homophobe, racist uncle seems to be out of fashion. These old guard stand up comics aren't funny anymore and no one is obligated to buy tickets to their shows.
"The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego one's own." -The Satanic Temple's Fourth Tenet
However. I also believe the right to be offended is one of the freedoms we all have. There's a lot of discussion over what this tenet truly means. I believe it should work hand-in-hand with the other tenets, which include "one's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone," "one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason," and "every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word."
I take it to mean that yes, you do have the right to offend, but also to be offended when someone violated your own personal freedoms. To say something that challenges someone's understanding of the world may offend them, but that doesn't mean its wrong. However, the use of the freedom to offend should be used sparingly, and with caution.
But if we start telling people they're not allowed to say things that are offensive to us, then that same logic can turn back on us later when we say something offensive to them. Pretty soon, nobody will be allowed to say anything. People should be free to express their opinions, so long as they abide by the rest of the tenets, in my opinion.
But, that doesn't mean we need to give people who are out to offend others bigger platforms to spread their messages. We don't even have to listen to them.
I'm reminded of the famous Voltaire quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
This is a complex topic, and I'm worried I'm not making my message clear enough here. Let me try to boil it down to a more direct response.
I do not agree that people are "too easily offended nowadays," but I do agree that people have the right to say things that might offend. I think people have the right to be offended about whatever they want. But they do not have the right to impose their own beliefs on others. If you want to say something offensive that I don't agree with, knock yourself out. But if you want to try prohibit me from saying something offensive to you, you can fuck right off.
It's a fine line. Yes, you have the right to offend others, but not the right to control them.
What you're seeing is that people no longer feel the need to keep their mouth shut when they don't like the joke. In previous generations, they had no platform and, in some cases, their physical safety was at risk. Social media has given them a voice and community where they can share their opinion.
At the same time, corporations only give a shit about profits, not art. They'll chase whatever makes them more money. If they don't think that people will watch something, they won't fund it.
Combine those and you have folks willing and able to tell corporations they won't buy something they don't like. But, of course, that can be outweighed by actual purchases. Netflix keeps shoveling money at Chappelle; people must be keeping their subscriptions to watch him. Substack recently announced they'll host and monetize Nazi newsletters. J.K. Rowling continues to be Andrew Tate for women and pulls huge residual checks.
So if you want more offensive things in the world, seek it out and pay for it. Corporations will churn it out if there is demand. Just don't expect people to only judge you quietly; they have tools to be loud now.
I'm not really understanding the article. Does it mention he was asked to host this year and declined? It almost seems like he's putting it out there because
A. He's trying to build controversy so that he's asked and can either publicly decline or "relunctantly" accept and say that he only did it under the condition that he could say whatever he wanted.
Or B. He asked and they turned him down so he's saying he never wanted to anyway.
It all sounds fake. He has all the connections he needs to be able to host.