Oh for Fuck's Sakes, America

[NSL]

I know that. And I've never once argued that it wasn't. Why do you keep repeating this? When did I say that Dunham wasn't a comedian? I said he was a poor comedian.

Because he doesn't make you laugh? Or, because he makes other people laugh?

 

[X]

Because his comedy is of shit quality. That's why he's poor NSL. This is my opinion, this is no different from you saying a band you don't like is shit. I'm sorry, how am I supposed to judge artists now? By other people's opinions, or by my OWN opinion?

 

[Slyfox696]

Do you just refuse to understand the concept of art Slyfox? Comedy is a performing art, and like any other art the actual PERFORMANCE and WORK you are doing (the jokes you tell, the points you raise) can be just as if not more important than whether or not people are laughing. Andy Kaufman showed this to us among many others.

So wait...

Are you trying to say that even if nobody laughs at your routine, you are still funny? That doesn't make any sense.

If you're creating your art, for the purpose of a certain kind of feedback (in this case, laughs), and you don't get that feedback, then you are a failure at being funny. Dunham writes his material so people will laugh, have a good time, and at the end of the day, pay to see him perform. And since people laugh, have a good time, and pay to see him perform, then he's a good artist, because he's accomplishing the task he set for himself.

People stuck up their own ass want to pretend there is some higher sense of being that exists with "great" art. There's not. Good art is art that appeals to people's emotions, make them care, and achieve the goal the artist had for the art.

I don't get it, you bring this into every argument from music to wrestling to now comedy. Do you have some kind of deep seated hatred for art or something? Everything just has to be a cold and technical business?

No, the problem here is you have zero ability to separate things you find enjoyable from the "arts" you keep latching onto as a crutch to support your opinions. If you like Indy wrestling, it's because it's an "art". If you don't like Jeff Dunham, it's because "it's not art". The fact of the matter is, and I have noticed this over and over again, what you think "is art" generally depends more on whether or not you like it, or think it is good, than any objective notion of art.


The fact of the matter is that what Jeff Dunham does is art. Would I say that Jeff Dunham is the greatest comedian artist of all time? No, and I'm sure he wouldn't either. But to say "Jeff Dunham is fucking horrible at everything he does, he isn't even slightly amusing, his puppets are fucking stupid, and his "jokes" if you can call them that are about as funny as a Gulag" and to call him a "talentless hack" is absolutely absurd considering his ART is obviously GREAT at making people laugh. And if people are laughing, then they obviously are amused, his puppets come to life, and his jokes are obviously funny.

And if you can't see that, then you are completely blind and too stuck up.

 

[NSL]

Because his comedy is of shit quality. That's why he's poor NSL. This is my opinion, this is no different from you saying a band you don't like is shit. I'm sorry, how am I supposed to judge artists now? By other people's opinions, or by my OWN opinion?

Exactly...You don't like him, but that doesn't make him shit. He's just not your style.

 

[SavageTaker]

I don't find him funny either, and I think he's very obnoxious. But it's just that he's less obnoxious than Dunham.

I do see we agree on Louis CK though, who is one of my favorite comedians, and he's extremely funny and hard-working. I might be one of the few people out there who liked Lucky Louie. On the plus side, he's doing great on Parks and Recreation right now, and FX gave him a deal for him to get his own show. If they pair that with It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, that might be the funniest hour in television.

I loved that show. I have it on DVD and I've seen it twice already.

 

[X]

So wait...

Are you trying to say that even if nobody laughs at your routine, you are still funny? That doesn't make any sense.

No, I'm saying just because you DO get laughs doesn't mean you're a great comedian.

If you're creating yoru art, for the purpose of a certain kind of feedback, and you don't get that feedback, then you are a failure at being funny.

Than Van Gogh was a failure as an artist, because he never sold a single painting in his life. This is the logic you're using here.

Dunham writes his material so people will laugh, have a good time, and at the end of the day, pay to see him perform. And since people laugh, have a good time, and pay to see him perform, then he's a good artist, because he's accomplishing the task he set for himself.

Art has nothing to do with accomplishing a task you set for yourself. It has to do with expressing a emotional connection or message to your audience. Using your definition of art, anyone is an artist. I'm an artist because I set the goal of getting up at 6AM and do so. The delivery man is an artist because he sets a goal for himself to deliver his pizza.

People stuck up their own ass want to pretend there is some higher sense of being that exists with "great" art. There's not. Great art is art that appeals to people's emotions, make them care, and achieve the goal the artist created for the art.

'Kay, you keep believing that great art is that which is met with the most public acclaim. I'll keep living in the real world, the one where the majority of the human race isn't interested in art unless it involves explosions, tits and fart jokes. Some of the greatest artists of all time were met with scorn during their lives.

No, the problem here is you have zero ability to separate things you find enjoyable from the "arts" you keep latching onto as a crutch to support your opinions. If you like Indy wrestling, it's because it's an "art".

No, I've never argued that indy wrestling is an art, I've argued that wrestling itself is an artform. Which it is. It's a performing art. That's not up for debate.

If you don't like Jeff Dunham, it's because "it's not art".

It has nothing to do with his comedy not being art, I'm not looking for the next George Carlin here. It has to do with his comedy not appealing to me in any way, which is why I consider him shit. I'm sorry, am I supposed to base my judgments of comedians on someone else's opinion, or my own?

The fact of the matter is, and I have noticed this over and over again, what you think "is art" generally depends more on whether or not you like it, or think it is good, than any objective notion of art.

Then you misinterpreted me over and over again.

The fact of the matter is that what Jeff Dunham does is art. Would I say that Jeff Dunham is the greatest comedian artist of all time? No, and I'm sure he wouldn't either. But to say "Jeff Dunham is fucking horrible at everything he does, he isn't even slightly amusing, his puppets are fucking stupid, and his "jokes" if you can call them that are about as funny as a Gulag" and to call him a "talentless hack" is absolutely absurd considering his ART is obviously GREAT at making people laugh. And if people are laughing, then they obviously are amused, his puppets come to life, and his jokes are obviously funny.

Again, WHO'S FUCKING OPINION AM I SUPPOSED TO JUDGE THE MAN ON?

Using your logic here, anything that's ever been popular is good, therefore my opinion is irrelevant, and I should just shut up and like it. Sorry, think I'll form my own opinions, thanks.

 

[NSL]

Van Gogh was a failure...

He wasn't known for shit until he died...

 

[Harthan]

I think it's debatable to call comedy an art. I would call it entertainment, instead. While the two can overlap, they are not necessarily the same.

 

[Slyfox696]

No, I'm saying just because you DO get laughs doesn't mean you're a great comedian.

But it DOES mean you're funny. Which you tried to say he wasn't.

Than Van Gogh was a failure as an artist, because he never sold a single painting in his life. This is the logic you're using here.

Did Van Gogh paint his creations to be sold and make money?

Art has nothing to do with accomplishing a task you set for yourself. It has to do with expressing a emotional connection or message to your audience.

Which Jeff Dunham has done. So why are you arguing this?

Using your definition of art, anyone is an artist. I'm an artist because I set the goal of getting up at 6AM and do so. The delivery man is an artist because he sets a goal for himself to deliver his pizza.

Those are tasks, not creations.

'Kay, you keep believing that great art is that which is met with the most public acclaim. I'll keep living in the real world, the one where the majority of the human race isn't interested in art unless it involves explosions, tits and fart jokes. Some of the greatest artists of all time were met with scorn during their lives.

And you are treating Dunham with scorn...are you saying he's a great artist then?

No, I've never argued that indy wrestling is an art, I've argued that wrestling itself is an artform. Which it is. It's a performing art. That's not up for debate.

Good, because I'd kick your ass in it, like I have so many other times before.

Sure, wrestling is an art. And the best artists are the ones who accomplish the task that their art is created for: making people enjoy what you do, and make them pay money.

As is what Jeff Dunham does.

It has nothing to do with his comedy not being art, I'm not looking for the next George Carlin here. It has to do with his comedy not appealing to me in any way, which is why I consider him shit. I'm sorry, am I supposed to base my judgments of comedians on someone else's opinion, or my own?

If you want to consider him shit, feel free to. I don't care.

But the problem I have is not that you consider him shit, it's that you objectively define him as shit based upon your subjective preferences. If you were to say "I don't find Dunham's type of comedy humorous and just don't like him", then we would not have any problems or even be having this discussion. But because you used terms of objective quality to try and define him, then I had to come down and kick your ass in this debate.

Like I do in most debates about the existence and purpose of "art".

Then you misinterpreted me over and over again.

No, I haven't. Perhaps you are too blinded by your own vision of self-importance and your own ego to see it, but you have, far too often, tried to use "art" and "artform" as the basis of your subjective opinions.

Again, WHO'S FUCKING OPINION AM I SUPPOSED TO JUDGE THE MAN ON?

It depends on what you're trying to address. If you want to tell people how Dunham appeals to YOU, then you use your own. But if you want to try and objectively define how he appeals to others, then you have to use everyone.

Using your logic here, anything that's ever been popular is good

I never said that. Have you even tried to interpret anything I've said?

Sorry, think I'll form my own opinions, thanks.

Kind of hard to do when you're high on the weed, isn't it?

 

[Razor]

Uhh...no they aren't. Have you even watched him before? Are some racial stereotypes? Sure. All? No.

Ahmed the Dead Terrorist? That damn Jalapeno on a Stick? The redneck NASCAR fan? The black pimp?

I'll give you Walter as not being a complete stereotype, even though he is the quintessential white, "I'm going to get pissed off because I'm old" grandpa.

Peanut and the Superhero dude are probably the two puppets of his that isn't in any way based on a shitty stereotype. 2/7 isn't a very good average, I'd have to say.

 

[X]

That was the most hypocritical post I've ever read Sly. Any time you EVER try to tell me about how your opinion is fact, I'm going to point you back to your own post here.

 

[Slyfox696]

Ahmed the Dead Terrorist? That damn Jalapeno on a Stick? The redneck NASCAR fan? The black pimp?

Being a redneck is not a race, it's a culture. The other three I agree with.

I'll give you Walter as not being a complete stereotype, even though he is the quintessential white, "I'm going to get pissed off because I'm old" grandpa.

Peanut and the Superhero dude are probably the two puppets of his that isn't in any way based on a shitty stereotype. 2/7 isn't a very good average, I'd have to say.

Walter, Bubba J, Peanut, and Melvin the Superhero are not racially defined in any way. Achmed, Jose and Sweet Daddy are. That means that 4 of the 7 are not racially defined. So your comment of "every puppet is merely a racial stereotype" is completely wrong.

Like I said.

 

[klunderbunker]

Chris Rock makes all kinds of racial jokes and is called a master.

Dunham makes race based jokes and it's an issue.

God bless America.

 

[Dexter]

Chris Rock makes all kinds of racial jokes and is called a master.

Dunham makes race based jokes and it's an issue.

God bless America.

This.

 

[Slyfox696]

Chris Rock makes all kinds of racial jokes and is called a master.

Dunham makes race based jokes and it's an issue.

God bless America.

That's because Chris Rock is black.


Err...I mean...African American.

 

[SavageTaker]

Chris Rock makes all kinds of racial jokes and is called a master.

Dunham makes race based jokes and it's an issue.

God bless America.

Ugh. Just like Dave Chappelle, I don't find Chris Rock funny.

 

[Moon Knight]

Like no other country has had shows some felt were bad.....

 

[Razor]

Being a redneck is not a race, it's a culture. The other three I agree with.

It's a culture almost universally used to defame white people. Therefore, defined as a racist stereotype.

Walter, Bubba J, Peanut, and Melvin the Superhero are not racially defined in any way. Achmed, Jose and Sweet Daddy are. That means that 4 of the 7 are not racially defined. So your comment of "every puppet is merely a racial stereotype" is completely wrong.

I'll argue 3 of 7 aren't, 4 of 7 are. Passing average.

Like I said.

Okay, so the universal "He's got a complete set based on racial stereotypes" is false. But a majority of his act is. Can I amend my statement?

 

[Slyfox696]

That was the most hypocritical post I've ever read Sly. Any time you EVER try to tell me about how your opinion is fact, I'm going to point you back to your own post here.

Again, you don't understand between objective observation and subjective opinion.

Very RARELY do I post subjective opinion when it comes to wrestling. VERY rarely. Most of the time I post objective observations. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

It's a culture almost universally used to defame white people. Therefore, defined as a racist stereotype.

Bull. Redneck is not used to define white people as a whole, but rather a certain sub-culture of white people. Just like there are a ton of different sub-cultures of white people.

It's not racist in the least.

I'll argue 3 of 7 aren't, 4 of 7 are. Passing average.

And you'd be wrong, for reasons I stated above.

Okay, so the universal "He's got a complete set based on racial stereotypes" is false. But a majority of his act is. Can I amend my statement?

Sure.

Feel free to say that "less than half of his act is based around racist characters".

 

[Ty Burna]

Dunham is good, I enjoy his comedy straight the fuck up. Seriously people, what do you expect of a ventriloquist, for him to use a puppet to give a lecture on the importance of philosophy in the early 1800's? God damn y'all have to break down everything you watch on TV? You could be watching a damn infomercial and break it down: "Oh that guy is selling a device to help cook chicken better, he's racist. Clearly they are trying to market this device to black people."

It's comedy, it's supposed to make you laugh. If you don't like it, get the fuck over it, they ain't forcing you to watch the damn channel. Oh, I'm sorry it's too low brow of comedy for y'all. I must have forgot that we're all fucking geniuses here that don't have the mindset to let shit go and enjoy a show without over analyzing the fuck out of it.

As far as the racial stereotypes goes, big deal. How many other comedians talk about race, shit look at Lisa Lampanelli for an example. She makes fun of all races, treats people in the audience as if they were stereotypes, and she's never had a problem with any audience, real people you know. Dunham uses puppets, and because you don't like him, suddenly it's not right for him to use these stereotypes for his comedy.

I enjoy watching Dunham's stand up, my parents do and generally anyone that has watched his specials that I know has enjoyed it. If he's successful, why start hating on him just because his comedy isn't your style? I could hate on the Steelers for winning a 6th Super Bowl, but there is no reason to do so. They performed well enough to be the best in the NFL. If Jeff Dunham has been putting in work, touring all over the country, working on his act, and is finally getting rewarded for his hard work with a show on Comedy Central, I say he earned it.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Objectively, a comedian can be judged by how insightful his jokes/observations are. For instance, I don't like Chris Rock for his distinctively African-American humor, but because of what he has to say about relationships. This is how good comedians are separated from the bad ones.

 

[Mr. TM]

Who?

 

[SSJPhenom]

Jeff Dunham is cool.

Not really.

 

[D-Man]

This guy is not funny. Both he and his puppets suck. I appreciate the art form of the mime more than the ventriloquist. I don't know how you can build an entire television show off of some asshole and his puppets, and I refuse to even watch a minute of it.

I totally agree with this. Jeff Dunham is a waste of sperm. The guy brought back ventriloquist-comedy... yippy. His jokes are lame as fuck. I just don't understand the appeal...

 

[Slyfox696]

I totally agree with this. Jeff Dunham is a waste of sperm. The guy brought back ventriloquist-comedy... yippy. His jokes are lame as fuck. I just don't understand the appeal...

The appeal is having someone who can make you laugh.


How is that not appealing?