Absolutely there is a distinction.

And because of that distinction, and the fact that vehicle collisions kill more people by "accident" (we call them accidents but a significant amount of them end up being charged with reckless/careless driving) than firearms do on purpose, I think that vehicles are very dangerous.

"There is an answer to stop gun violence only when guns are not your answer."

I like the cut of your gib. Too many Americans see violence (no matter the tool used) as a solution to their problems. When you humanise the problem, you see that we need to change people and their lives rather than arbitrarily restrict tools (guns) that are 99.99% used for lawful purposes.

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

True, you could tell the part about calling Jay the "weirdest looking guy I've ever seen" was unscripted and honest - loved it, and it humanised Jay a little bit.

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)

Life is stranger than fiction, and it's always worthwhile getting an insight. I think it also helps humanise them. You got my upvote. ; )

One advert need not use all psychological tactics. I don't think they are using guilt here, though some may feel guilty watching it. The primary drive here is humanising other races and demonizing the voice in your head that argues otherwise. I think trying to add positive reinforcement, without being transparent to the point of undermining your point, within a 90 second window while also getting across your main message is a bit more of a challenge than you might realize.

Le Galaxie - Humanise (@TheSluiceGate 's band!) has been added as a related post - related requested by lurgee.

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

In some ways it kind of humanises creationists - makes you understand their perspective at least.

But at the same time - it's a massive troll by HBO aimed at secularists - designed to enrage and make them spit their organically grown, aeropress brewed frappadingdong at the TV screen.

Tywin is a cold, calculating magnificent bastard, and in the books that's really all he is.

One of the reasons I love this scene (and it's substantially different from the books, where Arya never meets Tywin) is that it humanises Tywin somewhat.

Some fiction likes to portray the bad guys as inhuman monsters, but in reality most people (even the very worst) are not like that. They came to where they are through a series of small steps, each more horrific than the last, but each justified in their own mind.

That, to me, is far scarier than the likes of Joffrey or the Mountain. Joffrey is just broken, and Ser Gregor is almost literally a monster. But Tywin made himself into what he is.

And that's the brilliance of this story. When you can feel sympathy for a character whose first significant act is to push a small boy out a window because he was saw him engaged in incest, you have a good writer.

I love the way the 90s comedians really humanised their characters, giving them believable feelings and a personality - something that's missing from the current generation of sketch show.