Anyone else besides @chingalera picking up a strong misandry vibe in Schumer's comedy? So much of her "comedy" has a "feminist" orientation that seems to do little more than put men down as being merely insensitive, dumb, hypersexual, and dishonest douchebags with no redeeming qualities.

Who cares dude, she's totally hot!

I care because it's blatantly obvious and her lame comedy is out-shined only by her agenda and the strained laughter from her audiences as she made her stellar rise in stand-up with one lame joke after another while being given free reign and backing to do so by the very cunts who wish to promote the castration of males in society through indoctro-entertainment...

Her scripts lean towards comedy before swaying back towards her ultimate goal. Laugh yourself dick-less ladies and gentle-men.


Thank you Trancecoach.

Fuck another, in a long line of un-funny, man-hating bitches.

Uh huh. SOMEONE here has an agenda and it sure as hell ain't her.

Yeah, I'm a white man - I shouldn't have to feel uncomfortable about ANYTHING!!!

Well ive watched a half dozen videos shes done and im guessing if you want to call her out on a few videos you could just as you could call out Bill Burr for some of his bits regarding women. I say go through all her skits and come back with the numbers. I would be interested to know. Until them I think her agenda is being funny. She is a comedian.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD7nPL1U-R5o_GHb3XEx8XKCjzgCFCTuF

*wtf

Adding video to channels (Wtf) - requested by ant.

Not here...Her overall angry-bitch/feministavibe, fast delivery trying to pack everything into tight groups, a barrage of un-funny amidst a few giggles and overall scripted slant. Her comedy sparks to a niche group of folks-She won't last-Or, maybe, the quality of entertainment and performers will continue to slide, and she'll be a type of maverick average as art, film, music, etc. reaches a crescendo of awful for people with actual taste and a broad-spectrum of experience, pleasures, and sage wisdom...So yeah, well, like, that's just my opinion man...

It's pretty common for men to do that in comedy, for example the following jokes that have been done to death for years:
- why do women always take so long to get ready ffs!?
- why are women are so emotional/illogical
- why do women talk/gossip a lot
- why do women love to shop/spend my money

That list is long. I've seen enough routines based solely around simply talking about how women are "bitches" (for example) that haven't been seen as sexist so i'd find it hard to criticise this person (who btw is unknown to the rest of the world) for even more subtle sexism.

@chingalera it sounds like you just don't find her funny and don't like her, so maybe you find it easier to take offence to any man bashing. I don't find her funny but i can't say i found anything sexist in this video (as you also say). She certainly hasn't made an impact in britain so i don't know what else she's like - i think i saw her on the roast of charlie sheen, she wasn't funny then either. Steve-o and mike tyson were better but to credit tyson he was so good he deserved a better audience.

No, it's a bit more than that as described above in my take on the overall quality and slide of most entertainment for the masses. She's cute, glad she's having her 15 mins, glad she's offering an alternative to standard fare, empowering females, etc. Could say a lot of great things about her as well but I didn't-I spoke to other aspects besides my thinking her schtick un-funny overall. Cue laugh-track, light applause sign, break to commercial, fuck most television up it's ass.

I'm just left wondering how many clown ho's can you fit into a pair of clown panties, I'm surprised only one left the room.

Someone's got their clown panties in a bunch . . .

Idk, I'm picking up a strong "dumb blonde is easily tricked and manipulated by her cheating husband" vibe tho. Fucking sexists rite?

Some people have problems with ANYTHING that doesn't stroke their ego just right.
Some people simply have no sense of humor about/can't laugh at themselves. They should stay away from comedians.
Comedy is always at someone's expense.

So who would you speaking of here, boynewt? Some people for example,only enjoy comedy of a higher-order. Some people continually laugh at themselves and encourage others to remove similarly, sticks and/or cobs from their own impacted orifices.

High comedy encourages us all to laugh at the world....Kinna like I'm laughing now.

Some comedy is formulaic and boorish and soon peters-out like a fast-burning fire of pine and dry brush, which would be my own prediction for Surly Sally here.

Surely it's not. There's loads of comedy that isn't at the expense of another person. Like, loads and loads.

Name it. Or try reading Stranger in a strange land for a better explanation of my point.
When analyzed thoroughly, all humor is at someone, or something's expense. I've never seen an exception...but I'm open to one if you have it!
EDIT: As I see it, all humor is schadenfreude (enjoyment taken from the misfortune of someone (or something) else. )

It's a skit about dysfunctional couples, and I think her character is every bit as pathetic as his. He plays a smarmy lying, cheating bastard. And she plays a self-hating, willfully gullible denial queen.

Yeah, her character is slightly more sympathetic, but vastly more of an idiot. I don't see anything man-hating about it though. These personalities do exist, and taking them to an extreme is funny.

Pretty funny. I'd totally fuck that clown though.

I'd even let my wife watch.

No problem. I've got a few jokes for you straight off the bat - what's brown and sticky? A stick. What's ET short for? He's only got little legs. Did you hear the one about the constipated mathematician? He worked it out with a pencil. Doctor doctor, i feel like a pair of curtains. Pull yourself together! What's black and white and eats like a horse? A zebra. What's black and white, black and white, black and white? A penguin rolling down a hill.

Hell, Tim Vine does hundreds of one liners in half an hour and the majority of them are not at anyone's expense.

I think you've confused what you find funny with the term "humour" as it were. You may only find shadenfreude funny, and so you think all humour is shadenfreude, but it is patently obvious that things can be humourous without being at someone's expense and i find it almost petulant to be asked to prove it when it is so obvious. You almost certainly know loads of jokes like that. How does Bob Marley like his donuts? Wi' jam-in. I stood there, wondering why the frisbee was getting bigger and bigger..... and then it hit me. What did the fish say when he swam into the wall? Dam.

From what i remember of Lenny Henry's standup (like him or not) in the old days, he didn't often tell a joke at someone's expense. Tommy Cooper used to make people laugh by doing bad magic tricks. Les Dawson used to make people laugh by playing the piano badly as only a good pianist can. Terry Pratchett makes me laugh by conjuring up funny situations in a fictional world. I laughed at the Big Lebowski when he shaded the pad of paper to see what secret notes Jackie Treehorn was making and it turned out to be a doodle of a man holding his own cock. What do you call a fish with no eyes? A fsh. I bought some new viagra eye drops, cos they make me look hard. What do you call a man with a shovel on his head? Doug.

I could go on and on and on, but i don't get paid for this and i have other stuff to do, but i hope i've opened your eyes to whole new realms of comedy where people don't get hit in the face with stuff. Where are the Andes? At the end of your wristies. Why didn't the skeleton go to the party? He had no body to go with.

I'm so confused by your request for proof that i feel like someone's asked me "Air? What air? There's no air, i can't see any!"

I'm utterly dreading to read your reply if it says anything along the lines of "That ET joke is offensive to short people! That skeleton joke is offensive to people with eating disorders! The penguin joke is offensive to the penguin you pushed down the hill!" Please don't embarrass us both by doing that, we both know those jokes aren't offensive. (Or very funny, to be honest.)

I'll explain who's expense they each are at....
1. the stick's expense edit: and the reader's
2. ET's expense edit: and the reader's
3. mathematician's expense
4.your and/or the DR's expense
5.zebra's expense (edit: but riddles aren't really jokes, even though you may find humor in the consternation of others due to your trickery)
6. penguin's expense

I never said they were all offensive, horrible, or nasty, only that there is always a target for/of the joke/misunderstanding.
I suppose puns may be an exception, if you call that a joke, but they are still at the listener's expense to a degree (as they are intentionally misled and made to look the fool).
7. at Bob's(and the reader's) expense
8. fish's expense
9. bad magic trick at the magician's expense
10. bad piano at the player's expense
11. fictional character's expense
12. Lebowski's expense
13. fish's expense
14. your expense
15. doug's expense
16. listener's expense
17. skeleton's expense
No one said they would be offensive, only at someone's or something's expense. Play's on words hardly count as "jokes" but they are still at something's expense, even if it's only the listener who was tricked by the teller.
I could go on and on, but I'm not being paid for this either. I hope I opened your eyes to the idea that all humor IS at someone/thing's expense.
Now dread away. I'm not embarrassed that you didn't read my post/comment closely.

EDIT: ...and when I was begging for air, I was under water...and you just laughed and said "I see air".

Firstly i'd like to say that it's clear to me you're not interested in discussing this, but rather somehow interested in some sort of conflict. I'm not, and i spent a good while thinking about my post before making it; your suggestion that i didn't read your post is soundly rejected. Possibly you didn't read or acknowledge the content of your own post because you have forced yourself into a position where all i have to do is show one single example of something being funny at the expense of no one or nothing to prove you wrong and now you have to be rude (the first sign you know your position is indefensible) and provide little to no justification of any of your numbered points (because you know they are weak).

I'll be honest, i'm not going to entertain suggestions that a joke can be at the expense of an inanimate object or fictional character. Between that and your distinctly shoddy arguments I think you're trolling.

A joke at the expense of a stick? At the expense of a fictional character? ET is not something or someone. It doesn't exist, it is a construct of our imagination and does not have physical form. It isn't even a "thing" (if i say that unicorns are arrogant bastards, does that make me xenophobic? They don't exist, but if ET can suffer jocular expense, unicorns can suffer expense at my comment also. I hate martians too, they're all short, ugly, grey bastards. Am i a racist now?). The zebra thing isn't actually a riddle - it pretends to be a riddle and ends up being silly; i can't understand your reasoning on this and you didn't explain it (no surprises there, your post is full of holes).

When you tell someone a joke, you are entering into a contract by which both people know that word play or trickery is going to be involved. By taking part in the joke, you are voluntarily allowing yourself to be misled so that a juxtaposition of ideas in your head makes you laugh. You aren't laughing at the expense of yourself. In the same way as reading a book or watching a film - you are not being lied to, you are not being tricked, you are a willing participant. When a magician performs a trick for you, you are suspending your disbelief and participating in a flight of fancy for entertainment purposes. Magic isn't shadenfreude either - no one suffers expense, they both enjoy and know that skilful subterfuge has taken place - though i'm sure you'll argue the contrary before you admit you've over committed to your point.

If a clown puts on an act for you and you laugh when his trousers fall down, you aren't laughing at the expense of the clown because he did it intentionally to make you laugh, he did not suffer expense. You are not laughing at the expense of yourself because you know that what he is doing is an act, you did not suffer expense (except for the ticket price, badum tish - there's another 'joke' at the expense of nothing/no one).

What you've tried to do is supply the definition of "joke" or "humour" such that the definition involves the word "trick" in a negative context and thus lead to shadenfreude. Not everyone thinks the same way as you do, which is what i tried to explain to you earlier; if you want to say "to me, everything is shadenfreude - i laugh only ever at the expense of something/someone" then i say fair enough, but that is not what you initially said.

So if/when you first heard the stick joke, you laughed AT the stick? The ET joke, you laughed AT ET? You laughed AT the mathemetician? I don't believe you, but regardless that isn't the point you made; many if not most other people are not laughing at ET or the stick, they are laughing at the juxtaposition of ideas. And therefore comedy/humour (not your very specific definition of it, which is irrelevant to our debate) is not ALWAYS at the expense of others, even if i accept that something that doesn't exist/is inanimate can suffer an emotional expense.

And finally, i don't understand the metaphorical suggestion that i shunned your need for air, when actually i spent a good 20 minutes providing you with air only to have you turn round and say "that's not air, it's nitrogen and oxygen with trace amounts of other gases!" and pull a trollface before passing out. Don't worry though, i'll drag you back to shore and make sure you're ok (this post).

That's odd. I thought a conversation through comments where my position was explained clearly, then yours was WAS a discussion....what do you call it?
I'm still waiting for that one example where the 'joke' is at no one and nothing's expense.
Explain why an object can't be the object of ridicule...or a fictional character.
You didn't read...I wrote it's at the expense of the stick, being compared to a turd, AND the reader/listener, who can't tell the difference.
What's black and white and eats like a horse IS a riddle, just a bad one. Explain how it's not if you don't think it is. If you didn't understand my explanation, that's not the same as me not offering one. Read again please.
Because you are complicit in fooling yourself does not make you less the fool. I say you ARE laughing at your own expense, at your foolishness for being misled (so easily, even intentionally by yourself).
Magic isn't shadenfreude, but laughing at the bad magician is. Clowning is ALL about shadenfreude.
Wow, you are bending over backwards there...you ARE certainly laughing at the expense of the clown...because he wants it that way. It's still laughing at his looking the fool. Because he accepts the expense (of being foolish) doesn't mean it does not exist. You're arguing ridiculous semantics and missing the point.
I have still not seen anything that doesn't meet my definition, things that make you laugh are at something's expense (even if that thing accepts the expense freely). You may not see it, but I think that's because you won't analyze it beyond the surface.
I did say essentially that, read again please.... I said "As I see it, all humor is schadenfreude (enjoyment taken from the misfortune of someone (or something) else. )" Your lack of empathy for other's points of view does not make it less so to me, and you have yet to convince me otherwise. I even gave a popular reference for that way of thinking, 'stranger in a strange land'.
When I first read the stick 'joke', I laughed at MYSELF for being duped...same with ET...I laughed at the mathematician poking himself in the asshole (in my mind) and myself for the thought. In the final analysis, the joke was on ME for most of those 'jokes'...and I'm fine with that, not offended, that was not what I said. I said the joke is at "x's" expense, sometimes that "X" is the listener. EDIT: sometimes the expense is infinitesimal and barely or not noticed.
Wow, you really don't understand humor? It was a joke, at your and my expense, about your statement "I'm so confused by your request for proof that i feel like someone's asked me "Air? What air? There's no air, i can't see any!"" That would make sense if the asker was under water, no? It was meant to show why someone might say that, and how the misunderstanding could be on either side of the 'joke'. Too 'deep'?
EDIT: And why you gotta talk crap about my face?!? I can't help how I look!
(have you somehow convinced yourself that your comments weren't snide?)

Lots of this in here - http://i.imgur.com/6sx4I4Y.jpg

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Amy Schumer, Clown Panties, Comedian, Balloons' to 'Amy Schumer, Clown Panties, Comedian, Balloons, inside amy schumer' - edited by Grimm