"Keep some green tea for her to see, and a book about history, so she thinks you give a f*** about gay shit". Character or no character, where's the joke? Guy's a bellend.
What would I like to do?
Thank you for showing exactly why Dapper is closer to straight impersonation than satire!
No wonder you think it a pointless premise, they weren't the question.
I already said that what people find funny is subjective, but comedy method is a real thing.
As I said before, Dapper fails because you cannot tell him apart from real life versions, that which he supposedly satirizes, such the guy the guardian article.
It seems that because you don't find it funny or can't tell it apart you want it censored? It's an incoherent point of view.
Loadsamoney is actually a good example - all his mannerisms and styling were grossly exaggerated. The comedy version of argument ad absurdum.
Put a real yuppy and Loadsa side by side, the difference is obvious. Not so Dapper and the real world analogues.
But that in itself is a subjective judgment, no? I mean, yes, the difference between Loadsamoney and the purported targets of the satire might be greater than with Dapper Laughs, but does it hold true that there's a certain point at which a character intended to be satirical is too similar to be held as satirical? And if so, who decides what that point is?
Isn't that the point? or are we not supposed to laugh at him?
The character on TRWBT acts like dapper, the difference is you see him get put down or dismissed, which is the punchline. His game idea at the e3 expo, for example, got met with a very nervous "that's..... intense..." by a developer.
But that in itself is a subjective judgment, no? I mean, yes, the difference between Loadsamoney and the purported targets of the satire might be greater than with Dapper Laughs, but does it hold true that there's a certain point at which a character intended to be satirical is too similar to be held as satirical? And if so, who decides what that point is?
While some fair points, I'd say that if you can't tell them apart from the real life version, it's an impersonation, not satire, especially if you don't then set up a punchline.
*edit* getting annoyed with keyboard. I have to rely heavily on prediction, and it keeps getting words wrong without my noticing. "Trek them apart"???
Nope. Nice try at projecting what you *want* my opinion to be onto me, but the words I've actually typed don't say that.
Errr, yeah, some do. Have a look at some of the responded on the web to that catcalling video. People do that crap, depressingly.
You can't detect the 'lolz' and need them pointed out (which proves or disproves nothing) and then you see an exaggerated character on stage and can't work out if he is real or not. Using your logic Frankie Boyle would be censored because people can't detect the 'lolz' and he wasn't 'satirizing' anything.
You can't detect the 'lolz' and need them pointed out (which proves or disproves nothing) and then you see an exaggerated character on stage and can't work out if he is real or not. Using your logic Frankie Boyle would be censored because people can't detect the 'lolz' and he wasn't 'satirizing' anything.
No, that would only follow if you can show Boyle has no punchline... try again.
You'll also note that I've shown dapper isn't exaggerated.
You don't seem to be reading what you are replying to.
While some fair points, I'd say that if you can't trek them apart from the real life version, it's an impersonation, not satire, especially if you don't then set up a punchline.
But the punchline, in this case, is the difference between the two, isn't it? The punchline for Loadsamoney is the slight difference between the character and the actual targets - the extremity of his behaviour. I would argue that some people aren't sufficiently knowledgeable about the characters he is skewering to tell the difference - does that mean it isn't satirical?
You'll also note that I've shown dapper isn't exaggerated.
What does this prove though?take the intro to lee nelsons show where he is walking around with his dog, some people actually act like that does that mean it isn't satirical or a mockery?
If the joke is supposed to be on the outdated misogynistic attitudes of a certain kind of guy, then how come most defences of him I've seen have been from people who ARE that kind of guy? If it's satire, he's not very good at it.
If the joke is supposed to be on the outdated misogynistic attitudes of a certain kind of guy, then how come most defences of him I've seen have been from people who ARE that kind of guy? If it's satire, he's not very good at it.
But can you blame a comedian for people enjoying their material without irony when it was intended to be ironic? Does that make the material weaker?
Here's what I think happened with Dan O'Reilly. He created this character that was supposed to be a caricature, who made outlandish statements and stupid comments. Then he noticed that, like Andrew Dice Clay and Larry The Cable Guy, the main people who were watching were people who didn't realise that he was taking the piss. So he started catering more and more for that audience. Not good, but I can see how it happens. But the fact that some people don't get the joke doesn't mean that the joke is poor, does it?
The man is a fool, and the car crash Newsnight interview really showed his true colours. Notice that he blamed 'the media' for his demise - always the last resort for somebody who has run out of excuses.
O'Reilly's defence - that Dapper Laughs was a satire of misogynistic attitudes towards woman - is so absurd it's laughable. There was no irony or satire in his 'humour'. He was fully aware that people were laughing with him not at him.
But can you blame a comedian for people enjoying their material without irony when it was intended to be ironic? Does that make the material weaker?
Here's what I think happened with Dan O'Reilly. He created this character that was supposed to be a caricature, who made outlandish statements and stupid comments. Then he noticed that, like Andrew Dice Clay and Larry The Cable Guy, the main people who were watching were people who didn't realise that he was taking the piss. So he started catering more and more for that audience. Not good, but I can see how it happens. But the fact that some people don't get the joke doesn't mean that the joke is poor, does it?
I agree with what you think happened, but I'd argue that at the point you start actually catering for that audience it ceases to be a joke at all, at least in any satirical sense. Which seems to be the only plank his defence has to rest on.
The man is a fool, and the car crash Newsnight interview really showed his true colours. Notice that he blamed 'the media' for his demise - always the last resort for somebody who has run out of excuses.
O'Reilly's defence - that Dapper Laughs was a satire of misogynistic attitudes towards woman - is so absurd it's laughable. There was no irony or satire in his 'humour'. He was fully aware that people were laughing with him not at him.
This post right here is a great example of the problem with this issue.
You've said categorically that there was no irony or satire, used the word "humour" in quotation marks, and denied his claim that the media was responsible for his show being cancelled, when even his fiercest critics would admit (gladly) that this was the case.
No, that would only follow if you can show Boyle has no punchline... try again.
You'll also note that I've shown dapper isn't exaggerated.
You don't seem to be reading what you are replying to.
He is exaggerated for comic effect. That you can't spot that or can't spot 'the lolz' doesn't change that other people can. A joke doesn't even need a punchline. It's not a great argument you are advancing here. More a 'I don't get it, ban it!' Daily Mail hysteria.
In that particular post, that the other poster's statement that he is exaggerated is untrue.
More generally pointing to the lack of satire.
take the intro to lee nelsons show where he is walking around with his dog, some people actually act like that does that mean it isn't satirical or a mockery?
That then depends on what is done with that character, as with TRWBT.
But the punchline, in this case, is the difference between the two, isn't it? The punchline for Loadsamoney is the slight difference between the character and the actual targets - the extremity of his behaviour. I would argue that some people aren't sufficiently knowledgeable about the characters he is skewering to tell the difference - does that mean it isn't satirical?
Loadsamoney was a huge exaggeration, not slight!
And I'm not sure how the ignorance of some people would give Dapper a justifiable label of satire.
In that particular post, that the other poster's statement that he is exaggerated is untrue.
It depends on what he is supposed to be imitating. I forget who the guy is who was putting womens faces into his crotch but i dont think he was supposed to be satirising him.
He is exaggerated for comic effect. That you can't spot that or can't spot 'the lolz' doesn't change that other people can. A joke doesn't even need a punchline. It's not a great argument you are advancing here. More a 'I don't get it, ban it!' Daily Mail hysteria.
Except he's indistinguishable from that person in the guardian article, so no, he's not, leaving your premise flat on it's face.
More projecting with that ban it point,I see. Is it easier for you to try and modify others views for you to argue against? Are real opinions too complicated..?
I agree with what you think happened, but I'd argue that at the point you start actually catering for that audience it ceases to be a joke at all, at least in any satirical sense. Which seems to be the only plank his defence has to rest on.
I think it's more nuanced than that. It seems more egregious in this case because we don't just dislike the misguided audience, but actually find the humour offensive. But suppose it was something different...
Suppose that he created a character who was taking the piss out of hipsters. But then the biggest audience for that character ended up being media ***** in Shoreditch? At that point, if the comedian starts playing up that angle, does it cease to be a joke?
I think it's more nuanced than that. It seems more egregious in this case because we don't just dislike the misguided audience, but actually find the humour offensive. But suppose it was something different...
Suppose that he created a character who was taking the piss out of hipsters. But then the biggest audience for that character ended up being media ***** in Shoreditch? At that point, if the comedian starts playing up that angle, does it cease to be a joke?
It ceases to be satire. Whether it ceases to be a joke or not depends on whether there's anything more to the act that's supposed to make it funny other than the fact that "it's satire". But if there isn't, then yeah, I think so.
Comments
It seems that because you don't find it funny or can't tell it apart you want it censored? It's an incoherent point of view.
His tweet about getting your walk right or whatever so that you "accidentally" touch women in the street isn't what people really do though is it?
I guess you could read it as an instruction from a serious person instead of someone mocking those people who swagger around trying to look cool.
Nope. Nice try at projecting what you *want* my opinion to be onto me, but the words I've actually typed don't say that.
Errr, yeah, some do. Have a look at some of the responded on the web to that catcalling video. People do that crap, depressingly.
Isn't that the point? or are we not supposed to laugh at him?
Same here.
Apparently he's gone. I never knew he came in the first place.
But that in itself is a subjective judgment, no? I mean, yes, the difference between Loadsamoney and the purported targets of the satire might be greater than with Dapper Laughs, but does it hold true that there's a certain point at which a character intended to be satirical is too similar to be held as satirical? And if so, who decides what that point is?
The character on TRWBT acts like dapper, the difference is you see him get put down or dismissed, which is the punchline. His game idea at the e3 expo, for example, got met with a very nervous "that's..... intense..." by a developer.
While some fair points, I'd say that if you can't tell them apart from the real life version, it's an impersonation, not satire, especially if you don't then set up a punchline.
*edit* getting annoyed with keyboard. I have to rely heavily on prediction, and it keeps getting words wrong without my noticing. "Trek them apart"???
You can't detect the 'lolz' and need them pointed out (which proves or disproves nothing) and then you see an exaggerated character on stage and can't work out if he is real or not. Using your logic Frankie Boyle would be censored because people can't detect the 'lolz' and he wasn't 'satirizing' anything.
No, that would only follow if you can show Boyle has no punchline... try again.
You'll also note that I've shown dapper isn't exaggerated.
You don't seem to be reading what you are replying to.
But the punchline, in this case, is the difference between the two, isn't it? The punchline for Loadsamoney is the slight difference between the character and the actual targets - the extremity of his behaviour. I would argue that some people aren't sufficiently knowledgeable about the characters he is skewering to tell the difference - does that mean it isn't satirical?
What is Frankie Boyle's punchline? You're using that word in a way that I don't feel you've fully articulated.
What does this prove though?take the intro to lee nelsons show where he is walking around with his dog, some people actually act like that does that mean it isn't satirical or a mockery?
But can you blame a comedian for people enjoying their material without irony when it was intended to be ironic? Does that make the material weaker?
Here's what I think happened with Dan O'Reilly. He created this character that was supposed to be a caricature, who made outlandish statements and stupid comments. Then he noticed that, like Andrew Dice Clay and Larry The Cable Guy, the main people who were watching were people who didn't realise that he was taking the piss. So he started catering more and more for that audience. Not good, but I can see how it happens. But the fact that some people don't get the joke doesn't mean that the joke is poor, does it?
O'Reilly's defence - that Dapper Laughs was a satire of misogynistic attitudes towards woman - is so absurd it's laughable. There was no irony or satire in his 'humour'. He was fully aware that people were laughing with him not at him.
I agree with what you think happened, but I'd argue that at the point you start actually catering for that audience it ceases to be a joke at all, at least in any satirical sense. Which seems to be the only plank his defence has to rest on.
This post right here is a great example of the problem with this issue.
You've said categorically that there was no irony or satire, used the word "humour" in quotation marks, and denied his claim that the media was responsible for his show being cancelled, when even his fiercest critics would admit (gladly) that this was the case.
He is exaggerated for comic effect. That you can't spot that or can't spot 'the lolz' doesn't change that other people can. A joke doesn't even need a punchline. It's not a great argument you are advancing here. More a 'I don't get it, ban it!' Daily Mail hysteria.
More generally pointing to the lack of satire.
That then depends on what is done with that character, as with TRWBT.
Boyle uses a literal punchline, a lot of the time, other times it's a contrast absurdity that forms the basis of the punchline.
Loadsamoney was a huge exaggeration, not slight!
And I'm not sure how the ignorance of some people would give Dapper a justifiable label of satire.
It depends on what he is supposed to be imitating. I forget who the guy is who was putting womens faces into his crotch but i dont think he was supposed to be satirising him.
Except he's indistinguishable from that person in the guardian article, so no, he's not, leaving your premise flat on it's face.
More projecting with that ban it point,I see. Is it easier for you to try and modify others views for you to argue against? Are real opinions too complicated..?
I think it's more nuanced than that. It seems more egregious in this case because we don't just dislike the misguided audience, but actually find the humour offensive. But suppose it was something different...
Suppose that he created a character who was taking the piss out of hipsters. But then the biggest audience for that character ended up being media ***** in Shoreditch? At that point, if the comedian starts playing up that angle, does it cease to be a joke?
It ceases to be satire. Whether it ceases to be a joke or not depends on whether there's anything more to the act that's supposed to make it funny other than the fact that "it's satire". But if there isn't, then yeah, I think so.