They are rage, brutal, without mercy.
But you.
You will be worse.
Rip and tear, until it is done.

Yea their both not really fit for the job.

But those who step into the ring get their heads cut off.

Brutal sport. Only a few are willing to enter the blood bath.

I don't know if this was more brutal than the usual roast. I saw the headlines back when it aired and finally got around to watching it here, but it didn't seem that much worse than usual. She had to expect people would insult her too, as her set included insults to others on the dais, so it shouldn't have come as a shock to her that she'd have insults her way too. Her set bombed for lack of comedic timing, comedy is hard (as Edmund Gwenn said, and later attributed to Jack Lemmon among others... http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/10/26/comedy-is-hard/ ).

That was brutal.

Update: Apparently the impact caused a frontal skull depression fracture. The x-ray is pretty brutal - https://www.instagram.com/p/BH-FKJkBj5o/?taken-by=criscyborg

Don't look if you are squeamish.

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)

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.)

For starters, I have to oppose the implied thought that Saddam's reign of terror was preventing this sectarian violence. His rule through the Suni minority to wage genocides against the Kurdish and Shia majority and decades of brutal repression of same all served to make the sectarian hatred and violence worse. Tally up the hundreds of thousands he killed through genocide, the million plus he killed in the Iran-Iraq war and everyone that died by direct execution or deliberate starvation level poverty and compare it doesn't stand out as starkly and objectively a desirable alternative to today.

Now if you ask what would I do differently it depends on what level of power I've got to act with. Ideally, we can go back to first Iraq war and have Bush senior march on Baghdad. This would've aborted one of Saddam's genocides. Equally importantly, this would have kept the Shia Iraqi population's view of America as a liberating force. The standing in the desert and watching Saddam slaughter them thing still carried their mistrust of American forces after Saddam's actual removal later. That singularly stupid move of leaving Saddam in power, at the urging of most of the planet, drove the Shia population of Iraq back to Iran as their sole sympathetic ally.

Next step, after the removal of Saddam, whether we can do it back then, or only a few years ago as it really happened is to truly setup an occupation government. You don't bring stability to a region by immediately trying to transition to a democracy before the shooting has even stopped. The occupation government would be run by somebody with actual knowledge and experience with Iraq, rather than as Bush senior did by sending in a guy with zero experience and a two week lead to brief himself. The task you should place on this leader, is to setup a federated Iraq, with distinct and autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. The occupation government would dictate things after taking input from Iraqi's rather than holding them to the tyranny of the majority as Bush and co allowed. The occupation would setup an initial constitution defining what laws and agreements spanned all three Iraqi provinces/states and what extent of autonomy they had to define their own systems of government. The American military's job would be to enforce this very basic constitutional framework. Each Iraqi state/province would be aided in setting up their own governments with a transition plan again dictated not voted upon. The transition plan would define the point in time when each state transitioned from occupation rule to a self determined future and rule of law.

The above plan on the whole would work, but Bush and co couldn't have managed post Saddam Iraq more poorly if they had actively tried to.

If zero time travel is allowed and we are to 'fix' things today, you need a lot MORE power. You need an army the size of America or Russia's and the political will to spend several years doing things the public will hate you for. The end game is still the same as above, a federated Iraq kicked off under a dictatorial occupation. To get there from today though you need to create stability. You need to take an army and march it across the entire country. As each city is cleared of militants you take a census of everybody and keep it because you need it to track down future militants. In entirely hostile locations like were ISIS has full rule, you bomb them into the stone ages before marching the army in. The surviving population is given full medical treatment. Now, as for sorting militants from civilians though, you do NOT use American style innocent until proven guilty justice. Instead, any fighting age males are considered guilty until proven innocent. This level of rule of law needs to remain in place until stability can be restored. You of course guarantee lots of innocent arrests, but your trying to prevent massive numbers of innocent deaths so it's required. As you stabilize the nation you can relax back to innocent until proven guilty and work on re-integrating the convicted.

You'll note that although the methods I'd declare necessary above are by any count 'brutal', they do not extend into Saddam's usage of genocide, torture and rape as the weapons of choice.

There aren't even words.

Saddam was a bad guy is absolutely the most ignorant remark you can make. Were Stalin, Hitler and Mao simply 'bad' guys? Saddam committed multiple genocides against his own people. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed not as collateral damage, but systematically. The remaining widows were systematically raped to impregnate the Kurdish women with half-Arab children and breed the Kurds out of existence. If that's not enough, Saddam invaded and seized Kuwait and declared a part of Iraq. In the Iran-Iraq war, he made extensive use of banned chemical and biological weapons against Iranian forces, before turning them on Kurdish Iraqi's as well. Anybody content to just call that 'bad' behaviour is morally bankrupt.

Oh, but along the way Saddam brutally murdered anybody that spoke out against him, or had their daughters raped or their families otherwise held hostage or also killed. More over, because Saddam classed these people as 'terrorists', clearly we should take him at his word. In that one sense, yes, Saddam was effective at killing and pacifying the people he counted as 'terrorists'. That of course is missing the fact that Saddam was the singularly most terrifying monster in the entire Middle East at the time.

Brutal? That ams not brutal!

THIS ams brutal!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Brutal, but so true. But ... didn't coffee contribute to the enlightenment and the industrial revolution?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsFxH2zdi_Y

Except nothing you said just now was correct. If Jefferson would have gotten his way there would have been no slavery. The fact that he said as much during a time when that could get your entire family brutally murdered is kinda a benefit to his character.

Oh, but he owned slaves, so he must have supported it. What stupid people believe this crap? You know who else owned slaves? Schindler did. He saved as many as he could and after the war? He was hunted like a dog. And while Jefferson did not "save" blacks, in a way he certainly did. His dictums were to treat those in his care with care and respect.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't support the confederate mantras, or that those who supported slavery were just doing what the times dictated, but Jefferson fought it in his own way. However, it was a lost cause and so he only could use what little power he had.

The plot of the battle was kinda dumb. Jon falls for the worlds most obvious trap and Sansa doesn't bother to mention her deus ex machina. Both of whom basically conspired to get their men/family killed. And Wun Wun! RIP big dude!

But goddamn if it wasn't one of the most amazing battle scenes ever put to film. It was great; savage, brutal and conveyed a true sense of how awful something like that would have been.

4.5 billion dollars.

http://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#7553bc81790b

I wrote that he has a lot of parliamentary power. And he does. Parliament and congress are synonyms. I clearly wrote the president has to deal with congress.

I know of the Bush junior situation, but that's not what the conversation is about (i.e. it's not about a vote miscount).

Trump has many character flaws (as all people do), but it is unlikely those flaws will lead to a fanciful dictatorship as you have suggested they will.

I didn't write that. Syntaxed, whom you were originally replying to wrote "You could vote for a woman who has on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law, covered up her husband's brutalization of women, and God knows what else, and only manages to escape prison because she is one of the sharpest tools the totalitarian American political establishment has..."

You're not following the conversation.

You're welcome to prove yourself correct in regards to court outcomes. I'm just not that interested in it. I'm trying to save you the bother. What am I enjoying by myself? You making a statement and not providing proof? Sure, super fun. You can enjoy that I defended both Clinton and Trump as innocent until proven guilty. How it should be.

I'm "still incredibly naïve"! Lol, once again, you were replying to Syntaxed and called him naive. You're not following the conversation.

I'm glad you asked how it is different. I pointed out that the word naive (especially in your usage) does not encompass a lack of knowledge (as in he did not know the facts of the case). You were using naive as a pejorative, as in he was simple, unsophisticated, guileless. I showed you a definition of the common usage of the word naive. You found a definition that included the word "information". I pointed out that this is not the common usage (and as above it was not your intention to suggest he didn't know the facts). You could probably use the word naive, which is still a synonym for simple, unsophisticated and guileless, in the context of being those things, because one lacked "information", but it would of course need to be contextually evident in the statement.

As a kindness I'm going to chalk you being confused down to tiredness. Go have a lie down.