I don't see how Hitchens is being an asshole there
he's making a specific assertion that women tend not to be that funny, and that's because they don't need to be
he takes care to explain that he's not saying there are no successful women comedians, but that those women that do succeed tend to emulate male comedians in many respects
I don't agree with him entirely, but I think he's more or less correct that humor does not come as naturally to women as it does to men
I don't see how Hitchens is being an asshole there
he's making a specific assertion that women tend not to be that funny, and that's because they don't need to be
he takes care to explain that he's not saying there are no successful women comedians, but that those women that do succeed tend to emulate male comedians in many respects
I don't agree with him entirely, but I think he's more or less correct that humor does not come as naturally to women as it does to men
I think it also stems from how men are far less reserved when it comes to being completely disgusting. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have fart jokes.
And to his point about how genuinely funny women are usually dykes, or at least a little butch, well I can't argue that either; The funniest women comic I've ever seen, Elvira Kurt, is a lesbian.
The only thing that he says that I'd like to see expanded (maybe I should read the article...) is his inclusion of "Jewish humour" in that list.
What the fuck is Jewish humour, anyway? I mean, I realize many comedians or comedy writers are of Jewish descent, but if it was only funny to Jews they wouldn't be popular... and if it was only about Jewish things and the Jewish experience, would the comedy really be that palatable?
I don't see how Hitchens is being an asshole there
he's making a specific assertion that women tend not to be that funny, and that's because they don't need to be
he takes care to explain that he's not saying there are no successful women comedians, but that those women that do succeed tend to emulate male comedians in many respects
I don't agree with him entirely, but I think he's more or less correct that humor does not come as naturally to women as it does to men
I think his opinion that humor is somehow masculine and not feminine is wrong. I don't think he's being a complete asshole, but he's saying something that could be construed as mean due to what, I think, is a misinterpretation of the nature of humor.
I don't see how Hitchens is being an asshole there
he's making a specific assertion that women tend not to be that funny, and that's because they don't need to be
he takes care to explain that he's not saying there are no successful women comedians, but that those women that do succeed tend to emulate male comedians in many respects
I don't agree with him entirely, but I think he's more or less correct that humor does not come as naturally to women as it does to men
I think his opinion that humor is somehow masculine and not feminine is wrong. I don't think he's being a complete asshole, but he's saying something that could be construed as mean due to what, I think, is a misinterpretation of the nature of humor.
Hitchens is a professional ass; a shock-comic without the comedy; a quieter, less-successful Fred Phelps.
The dude wrote a book about how Mother Teresa was a crazy cult leader only in it for the money.
People need to be criticized, but that's not what he does. He makes extreme claims and uses purposely incendiary wording. If his goal were to further the causes he claims to in his critiques, he would be working against himself rather aggressively.
Shack value brings publicity, publicity brings sales. I won't give him any more credit than that.
Two things:
1) No subtitles means I have no idea what's going on. Yet that dog clearly has the best lines and delivery.
2) I don't know shit about what's "normal" on Japanese television these days, but black dude with Asian chick? How progressive. I can't think of a single fucking commercial I've seen in North America with that.
I'm not thinking of anything off hand (I haven't kept up with TV in fucking years) but I'm pretty sure there have been at least a few sporratic ads with a couple involving a black dude and a white chick, which amounts to the same thing in America.
Hitchens is a professional ass; a shock-comic without the comedy; a quieter, less-successful Fred Phelps.
The dude wrote a book about how Mother Teresa was a crazy cult leader only in it for the money.
People need to be criticized, but that's not what he does. He makes extreme claims and uses purposely incendiary wording. If his goal were to further the causes he claims to in his critiques, he would be working against himself rather aggressively.
Shack value brings publicity, publicity brings sales. I won't give him any more credit than that.
His book on Mother Theresa by no means called her "crazy"... he said that she exploited her status to get money in order to spread Catholicism.
You're exactly right when you say he uses overly incendiary wording, however, as it sometimes overshadows the fact that he actually otherwise argues with a tremendous amount of rationality and reason. At least, it obscures that fact to those who refuse to listen to what he says beyond his one-liners and attempts at acerbic wit.
I think it's a fallacy to believe that he has nothing to say worth listening to because he says it in an offensive way. If that's the case, then you can dismiss what a rapper says in sociologically relevant music because he curses, or Sartre because he writes in French. Simply because you're unable to appreciate it, understand it, or even find it "in poor taste" doesn't mean it holds no water in rational debate.
Just a note, he also wrote books on how great he thought Jefferson and Orwell were.
To place him as a "shock-comic" is overdoing it. He's using a literary and oratorical style that have been in fairly respectable use for some time. Churchill used it. Nietzsche used it.
He's not a "shock comic", he's less than a shock comic. A shock comic is at least (usually, at least a little) funny. Calling him a "shock comic" wouldn't be overdoing it, it would be giving him credit he doesn't deserve.
How is "If you gave him an enema he'd be buried in a match box." "fairly respectable"? How is naming his book on Mother Theresa after a sexual position "fairly respectable"? He's done work outside of this genre- he at least manages to be more than two-dimensional- but his work in it is what he's known for, what he has chosen to portray himself to be in the public eye. This work isn't reasonable criticism, even if some arguments that could otherwise be used as reasonable criticism are found in it. This is shock value, and it makes any attempt at reasonable criticism of the same figures much more difficult than it should be.
Posts
I love the idea of this motherfucker showing up for a videotaped rebuttal half-cut on rye.
he's making a specific assertion that women tend not to be that funny, and that's because they don't need to be
he takes care to explain that he's not saying there are no successful women comedians, but that those women that do succeed tend to emulate male comedians in many respects
I don't agree with him entirely, but I think he's more or less correct that humor does not come as naturally to women as it does to men
I think it also stems from how men are far less reserved when it comes to being completely disgusting. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have fart jokes.
And to his point about how genuinely funny women are usually dykes, or at least a little butch, well I can't argue that either; The funniest women comic I've ever seen, Elvira Kurt, is a lesbian.
What the fuck is Jewish humour, anyway? I mean, I realize many comedians or comedy writers are of Jewish descent, but if it was only funny to Jews they wouldn't be popular... and if it was only about Jewish things and the Jewish experience, would the comedy really be that palatable?
I never got that.
I think his opinion that humor is somehow masculine and not feminine is wrong. I don't think he's being a complete asshole, but he's saying something that could be construed as mean due to what, I think, is a misinterpretation of the nature of humor.
Secret Satan
I think you're doing it wrong.
If you gave him an enema he'd be buried in a match box.
Awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opf5jIukSBM
This is much better science.
Also, do you know how big a bus is?
whuh
e: Oh right. I think Hitchens is American now. Or a citizen anyway.
Tumblr
what the fuck
Whenever I hear someone say this I always have the urge to shout out, "BILL BILL BILL BILL."
The theme is burned into my skull.
Correct.
Bill Nye had that affect on all of us.
ITS CRUSHING MEEE!!!
effect
Let me play it again just to make sure.
there's a pseudo-tiny truckosaurus and everything, it's really cool
shut uuuuuup
nom nom cat
The dude wrote a book about how Mother Teresa was a crazy cult leader only in it for the money.
People need to be criticized, but that's not what he does. He makes extreme claims and uses purposely incendiary wording. If his goal were to further the causes he claims to in his critiques, he would be working against himself rather aggressively.
Shack value brings publicity, publicity brings sales. I won't give him any more credit than that.
itt: Goatmon don't talk English good.
Two things:
1) No subtitles means I have no idea what's going on. Yet that dog clearly has the best lines and delivery.
2) I don't know shit about what's "normal" on Japanese television these days, but black dude with Asian chick? How progressive. I can't think of a single fucking commercial I've seen in North America with that.
Also, here's that ad, with subtitles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vtsK5h1plk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Pvbbadd4s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqlcc-bI8CY&feature=related
His book on Mother Theresa by no means called her "crazy"... he said that she exploited her status to get money in order to spread Catholicism.
You're exactly right when you say he uses overly incendiary wording, however, as it sometimes overshadows the fact that he actually otherwise argues with a tremendous amount of rationality and reason. At least, it obscures that fact to those who refuse to listen to what he says beyond his one-liners and attempts at acerbic wit.
I think it's a fallacy to believe that he has nothing to say worth listening to because he says it in an offensive way. If that's the case, then you can dismiss what a rapper says in sociologically relevant music because he curses, or Sartre because he writes in French. Simply because you're unable to appreciate it, understand it, or even find it "in poor taste" doesn't mean it holds no water in rational debate.
Just a note, he also wrote books on how great he thought Jefferson and Orwell were.
To place him as a "shock-comic" is overdoing it. He's using a literary and oratorical style that have been in fairly respectable use for some time. Churchill used it. Nietzsche used it.
How is "If you gave him an enema he'd be buried in a match box." "fairly respectable"? How is naming his book on Mother Theresa after a sexual position "fairly respectable"? He's done work outside of this genre- he at least manages to be more than two-dimensional- but his work in it is what he's known for, what he has chosen to portray himself to be in the public eye. This work isn't reasonable criticism, even if some arguments that could otherwise be used as reasonable criticism are found in it. This is shock value, and it makes any attempt at reasonable criticism of the same figures much more difficult than it should be.
this is fantastic