Cornel West

For some reason it is a reactionary genre, even though people who are funny in conversation are hardly ever this way

I'm not gonna defend stand up comedy on ilx because that's a losing battle but it is not a "reactionary genre", there's tons of high profile progressive comedians, queer comedians like Hannah Gadsby and Mae Martin are huge, etc. There's also successful reactionary choads sure, think there might be an example or two of musical artists that fit that bill discussed in these forums over the past months.

It doesn’t absolutely have to be that way but most stand-up seems to me to making fun of others from some sort of safe, above-it-all position.

At some point I developed some kind of allergy to hearing the Comedy Channel of whatever it is called on XM. Whereas years ago I always enjoyed the comedy block segment of typical FM programming.

I’m sure there are no doubt tons of great open-hearted stand-ups out there I just haven’t heard and I am only focusing on the negative.

https://i.ibb.co/jz0bPJz/Screenshot-2023-06-07-at-05-14-51.png

Cornel in the WSJ, not sure who the other guy he wrote the article with is though a quick twitter search shows in re-tweeting Matt Walsh.

he's the guy who created the Classic Learning Test

I’m sure there are no doubt tons of great open-hearted stand-ups out there I just haven’t heard and I am only focusing on the negative.

The long and short of it is that the stand-up world went through the same social justice debates over the past twenty years or so that the rest of society has, prompting a preoccupation with giving more space to comedians from marginalized backgrounds, soul searching about the various isms about famous comedian's material (the whole punching up/punching down framing comes from stand-up)...and of course also the backlash to that stuff and ppl positioning themselves as brave truth tellers against the liberal orthodoxy etc. As a rule of course the alt comedy scene is gonna be more inclusive than the big stadium acts but some of those alt comedians are pretty huge (even moreso in the UK where I think there's very little differentiation - James Acaster certainly the biggest name amongst younger ppl and famously trans inclusive).

I’m sure there are no doubt tons of great X there I just haven’t heard/seen/read and I am only focusing on the negative.

― CeeLô Borges (James Redd and the Blecchs),

forgive the editing but i reckon this covers 98% of ilx swipes at broad genres, disciplines, ethos(es?), methods, modes /everythings/ these days

it is a relentlessly negative place and it celebrates that and i think its too big a topic for any one thread

No it isn’t

wins otm

wow im cancelled

I think poster Darragmac is broadly correct, though I would say the real problem is not negativity so much as nastiness.

Tell you one thing I am negative about, poster dm’s shtick.

I was making a targeted statement about a certain virulent strain of toxic comedy that ends up in raw dog, shock jock nonsense that still seems pretty prevalent in certain large bands of the airwaves and etherwaves. He then edited my post into some very broad brush about negativity, and when wins and I pushed back he did his little po’ mouth celebration and said “oh, look at me! Cancelled.”

Why don’t you fix my post again, my friend, to distort whatever I said into what I really meant, according to your lights and then give me static if I respond again?

Daniel_Rf, on the other hand, provided some very thoughtful positive content and actual information and not just rude 'tude.

it wasnt at all meant to focus on your statement as a single item and apologies that it might have come across as that, i found it an interesting sentiment that did dig at something at the heart of where ilx has been heading for a good while

i noted the edit in that spirit!

and its not quite what pinefox says, i do mean the conscious/unconscious focus that ilx (as far as it is an entity or zeitgeist or w/e) puts on finding the possible downside to anything and then somewhat insists that that is the main/only focus that can be applied

again apologies for it coming across differently, no intent to do so

now

reading again

in fact

your approach is very much "standup is this in line with what was already being said on thread so yes a broad and i suspect you know yourself nonsense statement but allowable

what youve done subsequent to my post, which was as ive said and apologised for possibly too open to being misread, is misread my response to wins as anything other than reasonably easily spotted riff on the current cancelled thread and discourse as opposed to my actually bemoaning cancellation after a fairly light wins tweaking

i dont think thats anything other than you reading cloudily but its a poor reading and the responsibility for it rests with you not me, enjoy it tho

deems i feel like the least you can do is offer the exact same generosity of spirit that others would deny you here; consequently i'd say that the best thing to do here is wish good morning and not litigate because who loves court frankly

speaking of generosity of spirit, that seems to be Cornel West's entire thing and it seems pretty laudable to me

the initial irritation is a fair cop and lets not tbh

ofc, and 'i am not loving poster dm's shtick' is copy-pasted nu-ilx let's-agree-to-ostracise by the absolute book, but scrapping shdn't be our game was my thought, we play joga bonito now, and more importantly we show it can still be played, you get me

No it isn't

Who am I to ostracize anyone? Was just responding to one tiny string of posts. This is ridiculous.

fuck, i went too near the courtroom. it has such gravity

jaysus lj

guys THIS GUY IS NOT MY LAWYER

my point is you gotta play the ball not the man, saying someone has a 'shtick' is automatically ad hominem, gets everyone antsy. in this case it was clear you were just talking about punch-down stand-up, but in the same breath claiming without basis that (i paraphrase) 'most stand-up is this' whereas the real picture is much more complicated clearly, deems made the valid point that often on nu-ilx, guilt by association is a powerful vibe, safer to throw the baby out and so on, then had a bit of a yuck with wins, def all just a bit of light eyerolling, nobody got hurt

also i call to the stand uh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNyrYiljeIw

dm — commonly known as “dagz” — is an essential part of what makes ilx ilx. You can’t “not like his schtick” and still like the site imo

On the point of standup comedy though, I actually disagree with him. I think it sucks.

it usually does but then you see neil hamburger and you realise it can be the greatest of all artforms

One of my students said I should do standup after I told a funny anecdote and I gave them a detention

I was making a joke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkG4oIPT7tU

pretty funny wins, maybe you should try stand-up comedy?

Not with this crowd

i found it an interesting sentiment that did dig at something at the heart of where ilx has been heading for a good while

Interesting dmac, I think these kinds of analyses are always shaped not just by the place but also by where the analyser is mentally at. I've always found ILX a place that tends towards the negative*, mostly because it's always been populated by intelligent, prickly, critical types, and as such cannot really relate to the idea that it's been "heading for" this as opposed to always having been there. ILM I think was def more positive in the 00's - the poptimists get a lot of flack, but they were very good at getting collectively excited about a new release, or perhaps I was just less jaded then. UK politics threads obviously less negative during the Corbyn years, tbf the only positivity I can bring to that subject currently is deeds not words - i.e. mutual aid and activism can still produce a positive charge but discussion not so much. Anyway I think there's plenty of pockets of positivity - mostly on lit and niche music threads, the "your current five" thread is an oasis of positivity, ppl are really happy about that new spidey film.

* this is less of a diss than it might seem tbf - I've also been in online communities that tend very militantly towards positivity and frankly after a while the smarminess and hostility to critical thought can get unbearable

I think these kinds of analyses are always shaped not just by the place but also by where the analyser is mentally at.

tbc this is more me giving the disclaimer that I am in a much more chill place mentally in current ILX than I was when reading it in the 00's rather than trying to psychoanalyse you

no, good post and fair points

otoh “your current tight five” thread nothing but negativity

Wouldn't say ILX is that nasty either (not me though).

This place is chill as fuck compared to the rest of the internet and rather supportive!

Yeah, it's cool here. A bunch of white people can take over a thread about a black intellectual and talk about their posting issues.

Once every few months I remember that Cornel West was in the Matrix sequels playing himself ("Councilor West"): pic.twitter.com/1EWmYkPrr1

— Ben Burgis (@BenBurgis) June 7, 2023

my point is you gotta play the ball not the man

the opposite is true. play the man not the puck

saying someone has a 'shtick' is automatically ad hominem

no

lmao President Keyes

he's the guy who created the Classic Learning Test

Looks like Cornel is on the board there so thats probably the connection

West has decided not to run with the people's party, eyeing a green party bid instead it seems.

Now gone full COVID truther

Brothers and sisters, it's time we commit to understanding and addressing the role of pharmaceutical influence in public policy. I propose a COVID-19 Truth Commission to explore the disproportionate impact on marginalized communities, seek reparations, and ensure justice and… pic.twitter.com/XteB3MBBBg

— Cornel West (@CornelWest) August 25, 2024

is this brainworms, ugly nasty pragmatism, or is he just a fucking colossal idiot. Who knows and who cares about this insignificant fool anymore

COVID most definitely had a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities, but the problem wasn't that the vaccines weren't safe or sufficiently effective to be worthwhile, because everyone who got the vaccines, including the wealthy and the middle class, all got the same stuff injected. If he thinks that Big Pharma influenced the federal government agencies to direct the initial vaccines away from poor communities, I'm not sure what their business interest in such a choice would be.

If he's got some evidence of deliberate inflicted harm done, or even some anecdotes, why is he keeping them under wraps? Sounds more like he's flailing to acquire some political relevance.