*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.

Comedians who thrive on being edgy and pushing those boundaries, yet get upset that sometimes people get offended by that pushing are way more annoying IMO.

"PC" isn't anyone stopping you from telling your edgy joke. But your jokes would no longer be edgy if everyone stopped giving a fuck or occasionally pushing back. You'd just be another Jeff Dunham, even if you see yourself as Bill Hicks.

Tell your edgy jokes, realize people will push back, and say "Oh, good. I'm not some boring nobody." rather than get way more offended at their "offense".

As to your first question, you tell me. Why have them speak at all? Because we like a few songs they wrote or admire them for playing some fictional character on our televisions? Each political party uses entertainment icons to target certain groups of voters they believe they otherwise wouldn't reach. Kid Rock for the right, Black Eyed Peas on the left. Why do the political parties do this if not to provide direction for some segment of the masses?

Second question. That is my point. The more dysfunctional society becomes, the stranger the stars. They are the mirror to our disease.

Third. HuH? Did I say that? Where?

Fourth. Since politicians started employing entertainers to shill for them. It looks like our elected officials think they need to depend on the star power for votes. At least they are depending on them. And they are depending on them because they think we depend on them. And, I think voting is a "decision on our future," don't you?

Lastly, I am making an observation about our society and this Kabuki dance we go through. Do you not see this on both sides? I think you'd have to be blind not to.





>> ^NetRunner:

Since when have entertainers been a "compass of political direction?"
Since when have entertainers been any more dysfunctional than your average person who gets rapidly launched into a position of fame and fortune?
Since when have self-styled sober, somber people actually been any smarter or wiser than people with senses of humor?
Since when has anyone been dependent on entertainers for decisions on our future?
Nothing you're saying makes any sense to me, unless of course you start by making some rather condescending assumptions about the sorts of people who're likely to vote for Obama.
>> ^silvercord:
I've wondered for a long time why our entertainers have become such a compass of political direction. With many of their own lives so steeped in dysfunction it speaks to our own sense of alignment that we have, in ways, become dependent on their voices for decisions regarding our future. Strange, that. Not difficult to understand, but strange.

Lena Dunham is a friend of a friend... We all attended the same college, although she graduated a few years after I did.

Since when have entertainers been a "compass of political direction?"

Since when have entertainers been any more dysfunctional than your average person who gets rapidly launched into a position of fame and fortune?

Since when have self-styled sober, somber people actually been any smarter or wiser than people with senses of humor?

Since when has anyone been dependent on entertainers for decisions on our future?

Nothing you're saying makes any sense to me, unless of course you start by making some rather condescending assumptions about the sorts of people who're likely to vote for Obama.

>> ^silvercord:

I've wondered for a long time why our entertainers have become such a compass of political direction. With many of their own lives so steeped in dysfunction it speaks to our own sense of alignment that we have, in ways, become dependent on their voices for decisions regarding our future. Strange, that. Not difficult to understand, but strange.

>> ^bobknight33:

Truly sad to see the the Obama campaign is stooping so low. He must be desperate. It seems like the only votes he is getting will be young inexperienced college kids.

Obama the pedophile


Fucking College kids isn't Pedophilia. At least...I hope not.

Thanks!

I'm not admitting my first vote. I'm too embarrassed.


In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
I can't remember who my first time was for. There are too many provincial and federal elections here in Canada so all I can remember is what party I might have voted for. Canadian voters are like Art majors!

*promote

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Awesome Standup Comedy . Jeff Dunham - Walter. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Considering that most Americans don't get Sarah Silverman, I'm more than happy to be lumped in with the intelligent few that do. See, the whole idea of Sarah Silverman's "act" (I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this on the Sift) is to appear as annoying and stupid as possible. Now, you can shrug that off with a witty "well, then she's very good at her job", but that's the whole point. The really funny thing about her is that she annoys people, while the rest of the audience sits back and laughs directly at the people who don't understand. And she IS indeed, very good at her job. You're just not realizing that you're falling for it. So calling her annoying and meaning it is just you... missing the point.
I'm not sure how you could possibly lump her in with Kathy Griffin but I love when people use the whole "shocking" cop out. See, the way that a lot of humor works is that after the set up, some unexpected or "shocking" occurrence ends the joke. It's about reversal and surprise. That's why they call it a "punch" line. People try to say the same thing about Howard Stern, Louis C.K. or even in some cases about George Carlin, when the fact of the matter is that the people who say that kind of thing are still being "shocked" or surprised by they're favorite comedians. It's just that in their case, the favorite comedian happens to be someone like Jeff Dunham, Sinbad, or Carrot Top. But the idea of the reversal is still the same. Some people just find talking Jalapenos more shocking than others.


Dude, I don't like her as a comedian, that has zero to do with "getting" her or missing the point. Just because we don't share the same taste doesn't mean the world's gonna end. Different people like different things, get over it. Next thing you'll try to convince me that I don't like Ben Affleck because I don't "get" him...

>> ^campionidelmondo:

That, and her annoying and obnoxious voice/behaviour is what I don't like about her. Her humor is probably "shocking" to most Americans, but to me it just comes off as boring and cheap. Her and Kathy Griffin, bleh.

Considering that most Americans don't get Sarah Silverman, I'm more than happy to be lumped in with the intelligent few that do. See, the whole idea of Sarah Silverman's "act" (I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this on the Sift) is to appear as annoying and stupid as possible. Now, you can shrug that off with a witty "well, then she's very good at her job", but that's the whole point. The really funny thing about her is that she annoys people, while the rest of the audience sits back and laughs directly at the people who don't understand. And she IS indeed, very good at her job. You're just not realizing that you're falling for it. So calling her annoying and meaning it is just you... missing the point.

I'm not sure how you could possibly lump her in with Kathy Griffin but I love when people use the whole "shocking" cop out. See, the way that a lot of humor works is that after the set up, some unexpected or "shocking" occurrence ends the joke. It's about reversal and surprise. That's why they call it a "punch" line. People try to say the same thing about Howard Stern, Louis C.K. or even in some cases about George Carlin, when the fact of the matter is that the people who say that kind of thing are still being "shocked" or surprised by they're favorite comedians. It's just that in their case, the favorite comedian happens to be someone like Jeff Dunham, Sinbad, or Carrot Top. But the idea of the reversal is still the same. Some people just find talking Jalapenos more shocking than others.

A good percentage of the Dutch people (especially the younger Dutch) speak at least some English, but even still, some colloquialisms aren't a part of your usual school or home study course, like "working a room," or "fisting."

Still, pretty damn funny. Her and Jeff Dunham should do a four-way.

She's funnier than Jeff Dunham, but then again so is my unborn child.

^Okay, the picture of a birth certificate is a piece of evidence. Let me just preface that I could care less where he was born or if he is a technically a citizen. I care a lot more about the other issues. Still, I haven't found any conclusive evidence either way. If the contrary evidence below didn't exist, I agree the birth certificate would be enough. However, I have seen contradictory evidence so at this point I cannot be confident in the truth. That doesn't mean I am politically biased, it means I make decisions based on the evidence I have, not faith.

How do you respond to this:

"According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room.

A few months back, a birth certificate WAS posted on the internet which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet some say this birth certificate is a forgery and again, his grandmother states that she was present at the birth, in Kenya. So what is the truth?

One explanation is that Obama's mother Ann Dunham, flew to Kenya in 1961 with Obama's father to meet his family. According to some news reports, Ann Dunham, was not accepted well by her husband's family because she was white:

"Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii."

However, by the time she wanted to leave Kenya, it was during the late stages of her pregnancy. She was not able to board a plane because the airlines wouldn't allow women so close to birth to fly. It is instead believed, that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya as his grandmother apparently stated. Then, after he was born, his mother returned with him to Hawaii where his birth was REGISTERED on or about August 8th, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii.

There is also a discrepancy in what hospital Barack Hussein Obama was born in, even if he was born in Hawaii. Reports by his own sister in two separate interviews state that he was born at two different hospitals-- Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu."

The testimony of his grandmother or sisters could be falsified, but so could the birth certificate. Given the information presented here, how can one make an honest conclusion either way?

I found a replacement that has ten minutes more.

The song "Jingle Bombs" (mentioned in the above video) is included in another clip:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Jeff-Dunham-Achmed-s-Jingle-Bombs

I found a video that includes ten more minutes than my original video.

In reply to this comment by darkrowan:
"This video has been removed by the user."

Well shit....