Such crap, his only intent was to get a shock laugh.

One of his best ever bits in my opinion.

Well that analogy doesn't hold up. No, I don't think detectives should have the moral latitude to dangle people off buildings.

But I'll tell you what the movement to police comedians' senses of humour really is: anti-intellectualism.

Like the parents groups who want to ban books with swearing, or sex scenes, or drug use from school libraries; like the SJeW vermin who want to dictate the design of videogames they don't have the skill to make for themselves; like the athenian jury who murdered Socrates: it's about idiots who are too stupid to understand or value art, and want anything they don't understand suppressed.

I don't know you, so I have to ask - is that an intentional hint you're giving us that so-called social justice warriors are really Jew vermin? Because that would be fascinating.

I'm 'offended' by the word 'offensive'. There is no easier, quicker way to prove you're too lazy or stupid to actually discuss and analyze a difficult subject matter than saying 'You can't do that, it's offensive!'
Joking about controversial or simply horrible things may not be emotionally safe for everyone involved but you can not watch Luis CK and expect he won't bring up stuff like rape. That's some risky stuff, sure. It's very easy to become cruel or sadistic with this but if you look not just at the intent but also the perspective of the comedian, it'll become clear that it is surprisingly empathic. Not only does Luis show empathy for the perpetrator but also goes further and analyzes the motives.
Comedy is a tool to analyze and understand subject matters. It takes intelligence and brutal honesty to make jokes as successfully as Luis does, especially when discussing issues like pedophilia.
That's why I laugh about CK's rape jokes but get angry when a guy stands on a stage and just says 'Wouldn't it be funny if somebody raped you?' to a female heckler. One explores a topic and tries to understand it, the other is just being a cruel asshole.
There's a reason laughter isn't a common sound in churches. Good humor often deconstructs what we tend to understand as unqestioned, common knowledge. It reduces kings to mere humans, prophets to popular madmen and gods to fairytale characters. 'Offensive' is the word you use when you're not pious enough to shout 'blasphemy'.

What Louis CK and George Carlin and all the greats do is TELL THE TRUTH.

If you tell the truth, you can say ANYTHING.

This isn't true: 'Wouldn't it be funny if somebody raped you?'

And that joke of Louis that began this vid is true. Absolutely true.

What makes these comedians great is that they tell the absolute truth -- and they are funny while they do it.

I tell the truth all the time, but I can't craft a joke or a bit. (I'm funny, but I'm not a writer.)

Louis is moral.

He wasn't using it to belittle or berate anyone. I don't think Louis CK goes around bullying people on YouTube calling them "faggot" or "autistic" which is imho the truly amoral use of such speech. Anyway, what's the difference between high school girls and you? You keep getting older but high school girls stay the say age.

I was right with you up to this point. I'm going to give you a the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a typo rather than a pointless antisemetic tangent and address the point directly.

Criticism of a piece of art does not equal desire to suppress or censor that art. I thought Twilight was a fucking awful piece of writing; and yeah, part of that was because of the horrendously misogynistic abstenience promoting bollocks. Would I ban it? Fuck no.

Sarkeesian and her ilk 100% have the right to criticise lazy sexism in video games, and they don't have to "have the skill to make themselves" to criticise it.

There's a difference between dictation and criticism.

Why can I not up-vote this comment more than once?! All I could think when I watched this video was, "What a bunch of pretentious bullshit!"

You're right with me up to the point we reach the kinds of censorship you happen to support.

What's the penalty for incurring the ire of the social justice elite? Well, only that you'll be branded a sexist or whatever by the entire gaming media, perhaps have your Twitter account banned or your videos taken down from YouTube, or maybe you'll just be arrested on false charges of harassment. It's a storm that a strong individual might weather, but from which any company will steer away automatically. Of course it's censorship.

Games are being censored (they came for the japanese bikini simulators and I said nothing...); social media is being censored: Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Wikipedia and any number of even less reputable sites are being censored - all in response to social justice histrionics. This crybaby, zero-offence, closed-minded, closed-mouthed malaise is damaging to our culture: damaging to art, to academia, to journalism. And if you acknowledge the need for open expression, you will oppose it.

"There is more than one way to burn a book," wrote Ray Bradbury of interest groups taking offence, "...each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever." You don't recognise any of this?

Yes, 'critics just don't have the talent to create' is a tired old fallacy and I regret echoing it, but there I was thinking particularly of the likes of Wu and Quinn: loathsome reptiles and degenerates whose own creative efforts are so miserably inept that to garner sales, patreon donations, and fraudulently positive reviews they resort to pretending themselves the brave minority voices raised against the misogynistic, LGBT-phobic, uni-racial establishment - in an industry that has never actually had any of those problems.

As for Anita Sarkeesian; that liar, mountebank, fascist collaborator, and 21st century Jack Thompson; that professional victim and demagogue who harnesses manufactured outrage for profit; or in the most generous possible light, that half-educated nincompoop who somehow rode a tide of hysterical activists-without-a-cause to a broadcast platform for her worthless, narcissistic rambling:
It isn't the fact of her fuck-witted critique to which the gaming community so righteously objects but the baffling inaccuracies and outright slanders therein, her self-promotion via false claims of harassment, her attacks on artistic expression and internet freedom.

And these are exactly the kind of sub-intellectual trash who will presume, against all standards of rectitude and conscience, to instruct their betters on what kind of jokes they're allowed to tell.

You never cede an inch to these fucking people. That's how you get Mary Whitehouse, or the Comics Code Authority, or McCarthy, or the FCC, the BBFC, the OFLC, the IWF.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seriously, though, if I think somethings sucks or I dislike it, it's absolutely my right to say so. That is not censorship, it's the opposite.

Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

Likewise.

You ought to know better than to believe the outrageous rebranding of censorship as something that can only be accomplished by government fiat, but in doing so you're ignoring real power structures that exist and giving free rein to regressives who want to sanitise and degrade our culture.

I never said that censorship was something that can only achieved by government.

I get that corporate censorship can and does happen for market reasons. And if companies bow to that, well, that's the world we live in. I judge these things individually on their merits.

The fundamental point is that if a company decides not to produce a game based on market feedback, that's their decision. No one is forcing them not to make that game.

And let's be honest here, Hatred (vile shitty piece of crap that it was) got released on Steam, FFS.

Once again, criticism is not censorship.

Well, that's the problem.

The thing about free expression, as you know, is that our freedom to play the game is just as much at issue as their freedom to make it.

When the enemy succeeds, through whatever disincentive complex you don't want to call force, in blocking the production of art to which they're ideologically opposed: it isn't only the company or its creators who are harmed. It's the entire world they're censoring, and then we have to live in the fucking thing.

What you're describing isn't censorship, it's commerce.

If some company wants to make a game that people find objectionable, then that's their business. If they decide not to make that game because of bad publicity, that is also their business.

If someone calls for a game to be banned, they had better have a damn good reason for it (child porn, etc). 99% of the time, I'll be against it, and defend the creators right to make their game.

But we're not talking about that. We're talking about people who criticise games. You may disagree with their reasons, but they absolutely have the right to voice those opinions.

Not allowing them to express their opinions about the games would be censorship.
Attempting to convince people to accept your opinion is not.

When Stephen Colbert made his Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation joke the trending hashtag was #cancelcolbert, not #iwronglyfindthisjokeoffensivebutwouldneverseektosilenceitsauthor. Control is the agenda of the StinkyJeWs, page by page, paragraph by paragraph.

Let's say you're a writer for a videogame being developed by CompanyA, which in turn is owned by MegaCorpX. Some leaked bit of dialogue or a screenshot of an immodestly dressed character rubs the stinkies the wrong way and off they go, shrieking and howling: #megacorpxisracist, #firechaosengine; articles pop up on Kotaku and Polygon lamenting the state of misogynistic gaming culture, in which perverts and serial harassers like ChaosEngine are still allowed to dominate the industry and keep POC and female voices out in the cold. #boycottcompanya, #chaosengineisapaedophile, #megacorpxfundsrapeculture

Sure enough MegaCorpX doesn't like the negative, if ludicrously inaccurate, publicity and the word comes down the totem pole: the game's cancelled, or the plot has to be rewritten, or you're fired, tough luck. You really mean to tell me that no censorship has occurred at any stage of that process?

I shouldn't have to remind you that corporations aren't people. They're steered not by principle but by market forces. If I shove a boulder off a hill and it rolls into your house, I don't get to say "Well it's nothing to do with me, the rock could have swerved aside, it could have stopped halfway down or it could have turned around and climbed back up the hill. It was entirely its own decision to flatten your home."