Jim Jefferies Freedom in America (FreeDumb) 2016 has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, July 8th, 2016 6:22am PDT - promote requested by lurgee.

Jim Jefferies on Donald Trump has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Yeah. No.

He didn't nail it. He doesn't get it.

And I have heard funny rape jokes. It is possible to tell the truth about rape and be funny.

Maybe once rape isn't something that is filmed by young men standing around a passed out young woman at a party, maybe when that crap is STOPPED WHEN IT IS HAPPENING, instead of being filmed, then these jokes will become funny.

Until then....

Nope.

I'm not going to defend this point of view, so go ahead and tell me how I am wrong.

And then read this, written by Comedy God Oswalt Patton.

http://www.pattonoswalt.com/index.cfm?page=spew&id=167

When they said he "can't make jokes about rape" what they perhaps meant was "he can't make _jokes_ about rape".

Its dangerous ground. Not saying it shouldn't be walked on, but if you go there with the kind of self-righteous free-speech stuff it always fails to amuse me. I know your joke is offensive. I heard it. When you tell me how offended some ppl were it just sounds like a boast, and don't that sour the whole thing a bit? I mean, maybe I'd feel differently if I thought any controversy was in danger of censoring his material rather than fueling it.

but w/e. No accounting for taste. People still occasionally link me Ahmed the Dead Terrorist, and while that is certainly less risque than the whole rape thing it is a total deal breaker. It's just before "using momentarily to describe something as occurring imminently rather than as something that will be occurring for only a moment" and after "sleeping with my best friend". pet peeves innit.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by lurgee.

Jim Jefferies is Autistic and His Kid's A Dumb Cunt has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

@Chairman_woo

You're right. I just skimmed it, when your essay appeared to be about the mechanics of humor. Which is not what I was taking issue with. (I'm a huge fan of this guy, in general.)

Did you read the link I did to Patton Oswalt's Wall of Text?

You don't have to. However, the subject is a minefield that has a context that perhaps you are missing in your scholarly approach.

[She, by the way. This is photo of my father the year before he died. My favorite picture of him. I know it is confusing...]

Worth it just for the PSA.
The rape joke was ... goofy.

I just read it.

I get that it's a complicated issue and emotive for many, I've been on the receiving end of abuse myself and I do understand what being "triggered" feels like (not that I think it should change anything outside of a personal context). I also understand that a subject such as this kind of requires some nuance and intelligence if it's going to be tackled comically, without coming across as simply crass.

But, finding some material crass seems like a necessarily consequence of experimentation and having a diverse artistic community. And moreover, Jim's material here didn't come across as crass, or intentionally hurtful to me. (beyond a deliberate faux crassness clearly intended to emphasise the effect of the material)

I can only assume that it cut too close to the bone for your own sensibilities and/or experiences? Or perhaps instead that you are concerned that it might in some way encourage or validate the twisted attitudes of unevolved brutes?

I understand and respect this, but I have always seen such things as my own weaknesses and obstacles to be overcome. By way of example; to me death and cruelty are the ultimate comedic premises. They represent the deepest fears and anxieties inherent in the human condition, and as such conduits to the deepest catharsis.

Life is unfathomably cruel and brief; to find true levity in the darkest reaches of that, I think represents one of the highest and most liberating state a human being can strive for. (the temporary suspension of ego and care)

We all die and awful things can happen at any moment, this for me is the divine joke and I suspect the underlying power of all things we find humorous to a greater and lesser extent. (one could re frame that as "life is pointless and as such hilarious", but it would mean the same here)

I guess after all that self indulgent waffling, I'm saying that I don't think the collateral of other peoples sensibilities should hold back the pursuit of such lofty things. I'm sure Jim wouldn't see it in quite such terms, but in his own small way this is what I think he, like all good artists, is doing.

There will always be Devils and Ignavi but would be Ubermenschen (or if you will Uberdamen) should never pander to such creatures, lest they allow them to pollute the light they seek to create.

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
Love is the law, love, under the temperance of will.

(That last part is just a lunatics way of saying; never let the fear of the foolish compromise the pursuit of ones highest arts. Life is short, shine brightly and apologise only on your own terms.)

(^ I do unfortunately suck at actually living by the above, because I'm lazy and cowardly)

Apologies for the gender mixup, I'll make a mental note for future reference

Much love.

I have to say, I'm with @bareboards2 on this one.

I don't have a problem with joking about any topic, as long as it follows two simple rules:
1: don't target a genuine victim and
2: be funny

This broke both of those.
With rape in particular, the more "edgy" the material is, the funnier it needs to be and frankly, this was easily the weakest part of that set. It just wasn't that funny.

It didn't come close to the sublime brilliance of Louis CKs pedophile bit, for example.

Which is a shame, because I think Jim is really funny. The rest of that set KILLED.

I mean, he did a whole bit about thinking he'd given his son autism and how he realised he was slightly autistic and it was hilarious.

But this whole section... eh, it just felt like making the joke for the sake of it. It was that awful Rodney Dangerfield style of "insult insult, just kidding, hey you're all right!" comedy.

If you want to see an example of a great, REALLY uncomfortable bit of humour, watch Reginald D Hunter.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Reginal-D-Hunter-Women-Drivers-and-F-You-Movies

Reginald D Hunter - Women Drivers and "F" You Movies has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

Nailed it for me, but that's kinda the point. Humour is subjective... As much as the comedian uses techniques to deliver his comedy, it also requires an audience that is receptive.

You could go off at this point and make all sort of assumptions about the person I am, and vice versa I could do the same re: you. Ultimately though, it doesn't really matter because we aren't all required to get the joke. We are allowed to be entertained, and we are allowed to be offended.

Though I'm not sure how "once rape isn't something that is filmed" makes a difference one way or another because the comedian isn't personally responsible (to the best of my knowledge) for standing by and allowing a rape to happen while he films it.

And I don't see why you'd duck out of the conversation because your opinion on this matter cannot be wrong. It's your point of view about a subjective piece. It's not like it's a fact for everyone that the routine is funny.

@Chairman_woo

If you read my original comment, that says it all about how I feel about this particular "rape joke."

It'll get funny when we don't live in a world where women are fingered while passed out and teenage boys take video of the assault instead of stopping it. Like those Swedish bicyclists did.

Maybe these jokes are funnier in Sweden, where sexual assault isn't the norm.

@Asmo

Did you read the link to Patton Oswalt?

He talks about what he learned about "rape jokes" by educating himself on the rape culture in our society, and the place of the "victim" in humor.

I have laughed at plenty of rape jokes that made fun directly of rapists. I see how Jim tried to do that here. I don't think he succeeded. Certainly, it was improved by his narrative frame of including the woman who complained about his "rape jokes." That helped.

I removed myself (or thought I was going to) because I have been insulted and attacked in the past on the Sift on this subject. That isn't happening this time around, for which I am deeply grateful.

This time around, it is just a difference of opinion. I got no problems with a difference of opinion.

Well said @Asmo - and as you say audience makes a difference, if he was shouting this out in the street it would be offensive.

People are allowed to not find the jokes funny, the only contentious issue is whether we're ok with him saying them.

Happily I think the general consensus is that we more or less always have been.

I figure it's the difference between empathetic and non-empathetic humour. Laughing with someone, as opposed to laughing at them. Jefferies shtick is non-empathetic. Getting angry at things and people. So when he "jokes" about rape victims, he's laughing AT them. Otherwise, when he's joking about people we don't like, we're ok with it, because we're all a bit narcissistic. When he aims at people we have empathy for, it falls flat.

@ChaosEngine mentioned Louis CK's SNL paedophile bit. That, even with it's dark and sick subject matter, is empathetic. He's causing us to laugh WITH the paedophile, not AT them. We're laughing at ourselves. He's bringing us, kicking and screaming, to the view the paedophile is merely ill, not evil.

(I don't think paedophiles are merely ill, I think like cancer, they should be bombarded with chemicals and radiation until they disappear. But that's just me.)

No, I get it, I understand what humour is.

but I didn't laugh. I might have like, smiled a bit, I guess, but I didn't laugh. I'm not gonna say it was 1 or 2 or however dimensions is deemed shallow (i'm guessing the 3rd dimension is depth, so max 2?), but maybe one of those dimensions didn't sit so well with me.

Anyway. I prolly shouldn't have said anything. I basically agree with him, I was just out-loud analysing why I didn't find it funny, and that likely says more about my taste than his performance.

Exactly. Oswalt calls it "kicking upwards."

Comedians are at their best when they expose something true about the world, and they lay bare the lies of the entitled and the vicious.

Lindy West discusses this in her new book Shrill. Great book. I think she even uses the phrase "kicking upwards." It is lazy joke writing to trade in stereotypes. It is lazy joke writing to kick people who are "down."

Louis CK tells a funny rape joke. Oddly enough, on the page it probably reads terrible, just as Jim Jeffries says about this particular bit of his. The difference is, for me, that Louis lays bare in no uncertain terms EXACTLY what a rapist does and so exposes the brutality and utter selfishness of their entitlement. It's brilliant.

Mr Jeffries doesn't do that. He isn't "kicking upwards" enough for me. Not in this rape culture world. (And good on him for weaving the criticism into his bit, in an attempt to do what Louis CK does.)

And this is the brilliance of Louis -- that he lays bare the humanity of even pedophiles. The truth of pedophiles.

(They are doing research now that supports the idea that sexual attraction towards children is indeed hard-coded and a "natural" part of the human sexuality spectrum. If that turns out to be true... that opens up a huge can of worms that reflects back on our historical treatment of homosexuals. Chemical or actual castration? Permanent imprisonment? Creating more communities like that place in Florida that is populated with convicted child sex offenders? If there is no "cure," is capital punishment the only solution? I feel paralyzed by the implications.)

I guess that's where we differ.

I find it funny precisely because such things really happen.

In a world where no such cruelty exists, I think this kind of material would then become empty and pointless. Comedy thrives on the defiance of our misery.

I dare say it would get less of a laugh in Sweden for this very reason.

I'm clearly in the minority here, but then I suspect few people have developed the same sense of cynical detachment I have (working with the severely mentally I'll and dieing will do that to you).

The humour is definitely there, I guess you just need a suitably fucked up perspective to appreciate it.

Out of curiosity, did you find Jim's old bit about the child getting shot when he was in Iraq funny? I might suggest that is an even more cruel and fucked up situation than the subject matter being discussed here.

Would that only become funny when children are no longer victims of wars? Or is it funny precisely because of the incomprehensible cruelty and misfortune underlying it?

Perhaps you have an easier time detaching yourself from something that isn't as likely to happen to you? This seems reasonable, but I don't see how it precludes such material from being funny, only more challenging for one to engage with. (and thus more powerful if one can do so)

To bring in a thread from another reply "And this is the brilliance of Louis -- that he lays bare the humanity of even pedophiles. The truth of pedophiles."

In what sense is Jim not doing the same thing here? He is flippantly exploring Cosby's desire to victimise women, we all have desires and sometimes act on those impulses when we shouldn't.
Rape is an extreme example, but the thought process is ultimately the same thing writ large. "I want a thing I can't have, but I'm doing it anyway".
I might argue he is laying bare the universal human condition in just the same way, albeit with something closer to home for most people than paedophilia.

Presumably it's the other thread that's proving challenging, i.e. the masochistic idea of enjoying ones abuse? And again, there is something deeply fucked up at the heat of the human condition here. Deriving pleasure from victim hood, or having messed up priorities about fame and opportunity.
Stockholm syndrome, abused partners loving their spouses, groupies allowing themselves to be abused just to be near their idols.

We are really that fucked up as a species sometimes, cognitive dissonance is almost a way of life for most of us in our own little ways. It's clearly a deeply risque subject, but there is something dark at the core of the human condition there none the less.

The actual victims don't need to have the kind of mixed up priorities Jim is alluding to, we only have to recognise that we posses the capacity for that dissonance ourselves. (The joke being at the expense of our own inherent hypocrisies, not specific victims)

The only big difference I can really see is that child rape is much rarer than the kind being discussed here. (and thus I suppose easier for most to detach themselves from)

Is it really any less horrific? Surely if anything it is far more terrible for most victims and usually seems to cause more damage to their lives.

How does Louis's material on Child rape remain funny in a world where children are raped, yet Jim's material about women being raped only become funny in a world where they do not get raped?

Paedophiles have a culture too. They form groups, exchange materials, praise each others work etc. etc. Not to mention grooming rings and other such reprehensible things.

I understand that a particular subject can strike too close to home, but for me that was my failing to rise above my own fears and traumas. When I finally got to a place where I could laugh at my own victim hood, it was one of the most liberating experiences of my life. (Don't get me wrong, that shit never completely goes away)

@Chairman_woo

"Presumably it's the other thread that's proving challenging, i.e. the masochistic idea of enjoying ones abuse?"

I scanned the comment thread and didn't see anything about this. Are you saying that is what the comedy bit is saying?

I would suggest that you misunderstood his comedic point, like, entirely. Not that I thought it was funny, but I thought he was trying to point up that rape is terrible and that it is "funny" to give different types of rapes grades to bring that point home.

After all, he says repeatedly, I hate rape. I believed him.

I thought it was poorly constructed and not "truthful" like Louis CK gets to the truth of horrible things. But whatever. Not everyone is as brilliant as Louis CK.

However. If you think the joke was some women actually enjoy being digitally raped because they like the idea of being taken against their will in their sexual fantasies, then, to me, you are proving my point that this bit doesn't work.

Of course, it is possible that was indeed the "joke." If it is, then I actively detest this bit and how it actively supports rape culture in our society.

I'm not judging sexual fantasies -- they are what they are. There is, however, a deep difference between sexual fantasies and sexual play and actually, literally, being raped. (I recommend reading Dan Savage's sex advice column. This topic comes up a lot.)

I don't think that is what he meant though. I think the joke is just poorly constructed and he needs to work on it more.

I fear you have misunderstood what I was getting at.

He talks for full minute about the ironic idea of the victims hypothetically having a sense of cognitive dissonance about the experience (done from his perspective).

Timestamp: 3:40ish to 4:50ish

I don't for a moment think he is suggesting they actually did, but the juxtaposition of that can be funny for the reasons I already outlined.
i.e. it is a common phenomenon in other areas of our experience, with people we idolise. By associating it with an experience in which we presume most people wouldn't or didn't feel that way, we have more strings of that irony thrown into the comedy orchestra.

Cosby is famous and loved and his fans presumably find him funny. There is therefore humour in the ridiculous idea that there might be some starstruck joy in being violated by said idol.

I think the bit worked perfectly if one can detach oneself from ideological prejudices.

As I already said, Louis's bits about paedophilia don't appear to be doing anything different here and thus far you have failed to explain how they actually differ, other than using the unqualified term "truthful".

Louis talks about their desires and relates them in a way universal to the human condition. This is precisely what much of Jim routine is clearly doing. "think about the thing you really love to do, well that's how Bill feels about rape" (paraphrased).

I can't see a distinction right now other than you appear to be much more emotionally sensitive to the rape thing. This is understandable, but I'm not seeing the lack of equivalence between the two comics here in terms of composition and implied meaning?

This whole bit felt deeply multi stranded and was tackling many disparate concepts at once. The gradation of rape was merely one of them and I think it's unfair to break it down to only one, or to deny the "truthfulness" hiding behind the sham.

Without that "truthfulness" the whole bit doesn't work, the assumption that the audience recognises the reality beneath the sham is unavoidable. Unless of course you think the audience and or Jim to be genuinely callous and misogynistic (which you've made clear you do not).

I guess my whole point is that the two bits are functionally almost identical. The only difference I can really see is a different style of delivery and subject matter.

I notice you appear to have dodged the comparisons to his war jokes?

Is there no moral equivalence there? If anything there is far less empathy and personal "truth" being explored. The "little cunt" just dies, Jim never attempts to humanise him or relate the kids experience in an ironic way.

By your logic that routine should be far more offensive surely? (especially when we consider that life and subsequent brutal death in a warzone is quite possibly a more horrible experience than most rapes, especially the kind being discussed here)

@Chairman_woo

Sorry to have misunderstood. Glad to know that your words, which seemed pretty straightforward, don't mean what I thought they meant.

I'm not interested in explaining myself more than I have. Chaosengine gets it. Maybe Patton Oswalt gets it -- it's hard to say about him, though. Would he see the same disconnect from empathy and "kicking upwards" as I see? Can't know that without him chiming in. I do know he "gets it" generally.

I'm happy with letting it be at this point.

Jim Jefferies on Vaccinating his child (autism Prequel) has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

@serious-fase:

better to have loved and been raped than to never have been loved at all. that's my silver lining. also, it is both a joke and my opinion, as i both love and hate my now deceased rapist. yeah, i'm being cheeky but so wut.

too complicated for me to give a shit if my fucked up life and sense of humor triggers someone. try sitting in group therapy with me, sucka. fuck your conservative sensitivity. boo fucking hoo. it's rape. it happens. people get over it and laugh. we don't have to live like goddamn trolls under a bridge just because we are rape victims. honestly, stfu.

i wrote something similar in a therapy session after forgiving my rapist and being annoyed at people that coddled me because i'm a "victim". great, i'm a victim? fuck you.

honestly, if you're not over your rape trauma, don't watch a fucking rape joke video. JESUS. if the world wasn't so overly protective of this shit, maybe we wouldn't be laden with our constipated emotional issues and ineffectual pharmacological solutions which turn into accidental overdose victims every goddamn day. if you can't laugh, that's when you die.

your psychiatrist and therapist and all those tools that convinced you to take all of those drugs and wear the cap of the victim: FUCK. THOSE. PEOPLE.

OOOOORRRR if you like self worth at the cost of a censored life of half triggered social anxiety: Riiiiiiiiiiide the train to proper thoughts and chilled out operational defintions that make doing business and living healthy in corporate america a snap! just shame people for laughing at things that hurt you. and convince others that not shaming others into this is not right. oooohhh, that's the moral thing to do!!!

yeah, no thanks on that one -- laughing at what hurts me most is the only thing that gives me the will to keep living. you wanna shame me for laughing at my problems? that's a bunch of HORSE SHIT. talk about rape -- let's talk about the rape of our fucking minds every fucking day by institutions that teach us this bullshit philosophy.

i'm just tired and hungry -- and i had a good fucking laugh at this video. before you respond to me, fuck you, don't bother. i don't wish to discuss how i deal with my victimization through humor and even if you do -- not reading it

Thought you missed a space there. Totally different sentence.

I'm going to make an effort to carry that statement with me from now on. It's kind of good advice.

Wow, didn't expect to see the comments section explode like this. Seems like some people took what he was saying seriously in spite of the multiple disclaimers he gives the audience that this whole bit is a joke.

I could absolutely see why someone who is an actual Cosby rape victim and takes Jefferies's words seriously would be offended. I could absolutely see someone not being able to transcend their own personal pain in order to see the irony in this bit. But this seems like a wholly different kind of joke from the one Dave Tosh allegedly made in which it was really unclear whether he was joking or not about inviting audience members to rape a woman for daring to heckle him during a set. I don't see any malice in this routine whatsoever.

If you don't find it funny, that's fine. Every joke doesn't have to be funny to every single person on the planet. And if you don't approve of rape jokes, that's fine too. Like Reginald D. Hunter says, go ahead and withhold your laughter. "But take it from the rest of us who did laugh--it was fuckin' funny."

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by SDGundamX.