Former SNL comedian is forced off the stage for not being PC

[laughing dog]

He was not booted for "bombing" for 30 minutes. Here are the official reasons he was booted, according to the group that invited him and also booted him (AAA):

AAA defended its decision to give Patel the boot. “Patel’s remarks ran counter to the inclusive spirit and integrity of cultureSHOCK and as such, the choice was made to invite him to leave,” the group wrote on Facebook. “We acknowledge that discomfort and safety can coexist, however, the discomfort Patel caused was unproductive in this space.” AAA added, “We deeply apologize for inviting him in the first place.”

https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/enter...sity-inappropriate-standup-set-181726667.html

No mention of bombing. Any other reasons one comes up with are cherry picked from unofficial sources to fit one's biases.

That is untrue. Koy's source came out before yours. And your source has a link to the Columbia Spectator that mentions

the discomfort Patel caused with his remarks and overall performance

which may lead one to infer he was also bombing.

And, if his routine had actually been really funny, I strongly suspect AAA would not have been so upset. One unfunny joke would not cause this type of kerfuffle.

Maybe we should return to the good old days when bad comedians were booed or bombarded off the stage.

 

[Opoponax]

However, as bothersome and annoying as these types of incidents are, the people shutting down such speech activities don't hold any power. They're not legislators at any level of any government. They're snotty kids who will grow out of this phase.

I have been seeing this written over and over as if it is some sort of mantra. I'm not convinced it is entirely true. We've already seen this stuff spill over from college campuses into society at large, including employment tribunals.

That's why it needs to be addressed, and it's why I hate it when liberals will shit bricks over Trump's hate of free speech, yet condone the suppression of free speech on college campuses by leftists. Even if the incident in the OP was about a comedian not knowing when to leave the stage, the fact is that there are enough people who become offended and then think they have the right to suppress speech. These are authoritarian bastards, every bit as bad as the most empty headed Trump fan.

That said, most of those kids will grow out of it, and of those that don't, most won't go into politics. Therefore, it doesn't represent some forthcoming leftist nightmare.

 

[Axulus]

That is untrue. Koy's source came out before yours. And your source has a link to the Columbia Spectator that mentions

the discomfort Patel caused with his remarks and overall performance

which may lead one to infer he was also bombing.

And, if his routine had actually been really funny, I strongly suspect AAA would not have been so upset. One unfunny joke would not cause this type of kerfuffle.

Maybe we should return to the good old days when bad comedians were booed or bombarded off the stage.

I don't read that statement as bombing. It says his remarks and overall performance caused discomfort.

Take a look at the article here from Columbia Spectator. It talks about offensive nature and discomfort caused by the jokes, and how he violated their safe space:

https://www.columbiaspectator.com/n...standup-routine-for-jokes-deemed-offensive-2/

Of course, I suppose you could argue that if you are uncomfortable and offended throughout the performance, you aren't enjoying the routine, which is essentially bombing the set from that perspective.

It's clear though that the offensive, uncomfortable and inappropriate nature of the set within a safe space is what lead to his ouster, at least according to the group that invited him and made the decision to boot him.

Read their official Facebook statement on their reasons for booting him. It cannot be any clearer:

Official Statement Regarding cultureSHOCK 2018

...

Next, we want to address the performance of Nimesh Patel. His remarks did not align with the mission and message of Asian American Alliance and cultureSHOCK. Asian American Alliance stands for the political, social, and personal empowerment of Asian Americans as well as other marginalized groups. We seek to explore and understand Asian Americans’ places within current and historical political discussions in order to organize in the most effective ways that we can. cultureSHOCK is a celebration of identity and a space of inclusion.

Patel’s remarks ran counter to the inclusive spirit and integrity of cultureSHOCK and as such, the choice was made to invite him to leave. We acknowledge that discomfort and safety can coexist, however, the discomfort Patel caused was unproductive in this space. We ourselves are still processing the events of cultureSHOCK and maintain different perspectives on it even within our organization. We invite and welcome dialogue concerning his remarks and our actions.

That being said, we deeply apologize for inviting him in the first place and bringing these comments into a space for inclusion and acceptance. We apologize for the hurt his words caused members of the community. We also apologize for being inarticulate as we invited him to leave and that we fell back on an excuse that implicated Lerner Tech, a group not concerned in the issue. This has been a learning experience that we will take with us as we plan future events.

https://m.facebook.com/ColumbiaAAA/posts/10157013190847658?__tn__=-R

 

[Axulus]

I'm still trying to figure out which jokes were inappropriate or offensive? The one about the gay black man not choosing to be gay may be particularly funny, but what is offensive, uncomfortable or demeaning about it?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm still trying to figure out which jokes were inappropriate or offensive? The one about the gay black man not choosing to be gay may be particularly funny, but what is offensive, uncomfortable or demeaning about it?

Did the primary source say that was the joke and reason for inviting him to leave?

 

[Axulus]

I'm still trying to figure out which jokes were inappropriate or offensive? The one about the gay black man not choosing to be gay may be particularly funny, but what is offensive, uncomfortable or demeaning about it?

Did the primary source say that was the joke and reason for inviting him to leave?

No, the group that booted him said comments he made in his routine caused discomfort and hurt, which was unproductive/inappropriate for their space of safety, inclusion and acceptance. It did not mention any specifics beyond that.

 

[Mumbles]

However, as bothersome and annoying as these types of incidents are, the people shutting down such speech activities don't hold any power. They're not legislators at any level of any government. They're snotty kids who will grow out of this phase.

I have been seeing this written over and over as if it is some sort of mantra. I'm not convinced it is entirely true. We've already seen this stuff spill over from college campuses into society at large, including employment tribunals.

That's why it needs to be addressed, and it's why I hate it when liberals will shit bricks over Trump's hate of free speech, yet condone the suppression of free speech on college campuses by leftists. Even if the incident in the OP was about a comedian not knowing when to leave the stage, the fact is that there are enough people who become offended and then think they have the right to suppress speech. These are authoritarian bastards, every bit as bad as the most empty headed Trump fan.

That said, most of those kids will grow out of it, and of those that don't, most won't go into politics. Therefore, it doesn't represent some forthcoming leftist nightmare.

1) Again, it's a more-or-less private performance for a charity event, and the audience is, given how these things run, most likely to be primarily active Asian students and alum. I know that if a Black comedian was in front of a Black Student Union event, and proceeded to make a bunch of old jokes about Jewish people, they'd bomb as well - it's not about a "safe space", it's just that the comedian read a room entirely wrong, and then got belligerent about it.

2) Uh...yes, there's a reason why Dolt 45's repeated threats to use the full force of the federal government to suppress free speech, versus the student group who pulls the plug on a comedian who fails to get any laughs for a full half hour. "In Jail" is much worse than "leave early with your money".

 

[laughing dog]

I don't read that statement as bombing. It says his remarks and overall performance caused discomfort.

I've watched people bomb and it was discomforting.

In any event, if he had actually been funny, I doubt there would have been much of an issue.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't read that statement as bombing. It says his remarks and overall performance caused discomfort.

I've watched people bomb and it was discomforting.

In any event, if he had actually been funny, I doubt there would have been much of an issue.

Agreed. Watching a comedian that's bombing is very uncomfortable.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He was not booted for "bombing" for 30 minutes.

Read what I wrote again:

The reason the event organizers cut off the comedian's mic is because he was bombing for a half hour AND evidently being offensive to people in the audience while doing so.

Here are the official reasons he was booted, according to the group that invited him and also booted him (AAA):

AAA defended its decision to give Patel the boot. “Patel’s remarks ran counter to the inclusive spirit and integrity of cultureSHOCK and as such, the choice was made to invite him to leave,” the group wrote on Facebook. “We acknowledge that discomfort and safety can coexist, however, the discomfort Patel caused was unproductive in this space.” AAA added, “We deeply apologize for inviting him in the first place.”

No mention of bombing. Any other reasons one comes up with are cherry picked from unofficial sources to fit one's biases.

What a shock that an official statement would omit a phrase like, “The comedian was bombing and so...”

The “unofficial source” was a student in the audience describing the complete context of what happened. Ironic that you would seek to suppress his freedom of speech—and my own—through ad hominem.

Here’s the sequence of events. Patel evidently started out saying a few funny jokes and then started doing crowd work that wasn’t going too well. He started picking on one person in particular and was losing the room. If you’ve ever in your life gone to a comedy club or seen a comedian start to lose the crowd, it’s VERY noticeable and escalates quickly (or spirals quickly as the case may be).

So the offensive remarks evidently started long before the “gay black” comment. That was just one of the low points noted by—again ironically—some of the other audience members quoted in the Daily Mail article that you are curiously not equally dismissing as being “cherry picked from unofficial sources to fit one’s biases.”

Since you’re attempting literalism as your idiotic argument, you’ll note in the “official source” that they don’t specify the “gay black” comment either as the sole reason, but “Patel’s remarks” (plural) as the reasons for their eventual decision to cut his mic and kick him the fuck off their stage, which they have every right to do.

Patel was NOT in any way excersizing his right to free speech, nor was the action of the AAA in any way infringing on his right to free speech. Free speech is not about saying anything you want for no reason. It is exclusively the right against the government preventing you from speaking. Lenny Bruce, for a perfect example, went to the Supreme Court because it was the government (of New York) throwing him in jail for swearing in public.

Had the NYPD stopped Patel’s show and arrested him for what he said, then yes, that would have been an infringement of his right to free speech.

As it stands, this was a comedian bombing his set and apparently taking his frustration at bombing out on the audience so finally the decision was made to cut his mic. Well within the rights of the AAA to do so for whatever fucking reason they wanted frankly. Patel was performing at their invitation and at their function and therefore at their sole discretion. They could have cut his mic after five seconds if they wanted to and it would in no way have been an infringement on his right to free speech.

This is as stupid as arguing that anyone at any comedy club that is in charge of the light at the back of the room (that they use to signal when a comedian’s time is up) was infringing on their righ to free speech for flashing them the light too early.

 

[dismal]

So, now I'm left to decide. Who should I believe?

1) the people who say they were offended and the event organizers, whose official statement literally says they removed Patel because of his remarks being "counter to the inclusive spirit and integrity of cultureSHOCK"; or
2) the reflexive apologists here who say no one was offended and he was removed because his jokes weren't funny

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, now I'm left to decide. Who should I believe?

1) the people who say they were offended and the event organizers, whose official statement literally says they removed Patel because of his remarks being "counter to the inclusive spirit and integrity of cultureSHOCK"; or
2) the reflexive apologists here who say no one was offended and he was removed because his jokes weren't funny

Who the fuck cares what goes into your decisions? It STILL doesn’t mean Patel’s rights were in anyway infringed, or that the AAA did not have discretion over when and why to cut the guy’s mic.

You have first hand accounts telling you the comedian was bombing AND being offensive, so cutting his mic after thirty minutes was a mercy kill.

Why wouldn’t you believe that unless it is YOU that is acting solely on your own bias?

You know the Daily Mail is a right wing propaganda source. You know there is no issue of anyone’s rights being infringed. You know members of the audience said he was bombing and being offensive. What possible difference does it make as to why anyone in the audience was offended by anything that was being said? Just as no one gives a flying fuck about what offends you, why do you give a flying fuck about what may or may not have offended some college kid you don’t know, have never met and weren’t even their to witness?

End of fucking pointlessness.

 

[ruby sparks]

So, now I'm left to decide. Who should I believe?

1) the people who say they were offended and the event organizers, whose official statement literally says they removed Patel because of his remarks being "counter to the inclusive spirit and integrity of cultureSHOCK"; or
2) the reflexive apologists here who say no one was offended and he was removed because his jokes weren't funny

Seems to me that his act was probably curtailed for PC reasons.

 

[dismal]

So, now I'm left to decide. Who should I believe?

1) the people who say they were offended and the event organizers, whose official statement literally says they removed Patel because of his remarks being "counter to the inclusive spirit and integrity of cultureSHOCK"; or
2) the reflexive apologists here who say no one was offended and he was removed because his jokes weren't funny

Who the fuck cares what goes into your decisions? It STILL doesn’t mean Patel’s rights were in anyway infringed, or that the AAA did not have discretion over when and why to cut the guy’s mic.

I guess this would be a wonderful rebuttal to someone who had come in here with the position Patel's rights were infringed. Since I haven't argued this it seems more like another illogical rant.

You have first hand accounts telling you the comedian was bombing AND being offensive, so cutting his mic after thirty minutes was a mercy kill.

Why wouldn’t you believe that unless it is YOU that is acting solely on your own bias?

See, you used the word "and" there. Both things can be true at the same time!

My argument that people were offended does not require only one of them be true. The people who ran in here squealing that he was taken off solely because he wasn't funny were the ones whose position requires only one of the things was true. And they argued in spite of evidence that had been already been presented that people were offended. And they continue to argue it even after an official statement was produced from the event organizers that he was removed because people were offended.

Those are the people arguing against a) evidence and b) reality.

End of fucking pointlessness.

Well, let's hope.

 

[Mumbles]

So, now I'm left to decide. Who should I believe?

1) the people who say they were offended and the event organizers, whose official statement literally says they removed Patel because of his remarks being "counter to the inclusive spirit and integrity of cultureSHOCK"; or
2) the reflexive apologists here who say no one was offended and he was removed because his jokes weren't funny

Seems to me that "offensive" would be a very good reason to find a joke "not funny", so I see no conflict between the two.

 

[Mumbles]

Going off the assumption that all this happened the way it's being portrayed...

It did not, as, again, someone who was actually there has already clarified.

The issue is still worth entertaining though. Worse offenses than this have certainly happened, e.g. speakers not even being allowed to take the stage for scheduled speaking events due to the hyper PC crowd throwing a fit. And when we hear about that happening, the left's reaction is to minimize the importance of it. And this kind of thing doesn't just happen with neo-Nazi instigators of hate and violence. Hell, Jerry Seinfeld won't do college shows because of this nonsense.

It is fair to ask what good leftist values are if future leaders are going to try and shout down free speech. It is only different from Trump's hatred of free speech by degree. The young people have no power, but they will some day. Supporting them in intimidating artists now may lead to bad things in the future.

Yes, I remember Seinfeld discussing this as well. In fact, here's a video of him discussing it, and giving an example of a joke that people supposedly didn't laugh at because they're too PC:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXDHjwaUtPI[/YOUTUBE]

To me, that's just a bad joke. Nobody scrolls through their phone that way - everyone just uses the thumb of the hand they're holding the phone in. I have no idea how that's like a "gay French king", either. What is he talking about? Kids may or may not be offended, but I doubt they'd laugh regardless.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

My argument that people were offended does not require only one of them be true.

See Mumbles’ point in regard to finding something offensive naturally translating into finding it to also not be funny.

And then you can explain to everyone why any of us should give a flying fuck what YOU do or do not find offensive. People in the audience found some of the shit he said offensive. And...? So the fuck what.

They’re snowflakes! This country! Trump! Fuck off. People are allowed to find anything they fucking feel like to be offensive. Assholes ironically being too sensitive about what other people find “too sensitive” aren’t doing anything more than telling the world their own idiotic opinions. It means nothing. It says nothing. No lid has been blown off; no point has been made.

I hate that other people feel things that I don’t. Who gives a fuck?

The ONLY relevant argument would be if someone’s rights were being infringed, so if that is NOT behind your objection to this total non-event, then wtf are you complaining about snowflake?

 

[dismal]

My argument that people were offended does not require only one of them be true.

See Mumbles’ point in regard to finding something offensive naturally translating into finding it to also not be funny.

And then you can explain to everyone why any of us should give a flying fuck what YOU do or do not find offensive. People in the audience found some of the shit he said offensive. And...? So the fuck what.

They’re snowflakes! This country! Trump! Fuck off. People are allowed to find anything they fucking feel like to be offensive. Assholes ironically being too sensitive about what other people find “too sensitive” aren’t doing anything more than telling the world their own idiotic opinions. It means nothing. It says nothing. No lid has been blown off; no point has been made.

I hate that other people feel things that I don’t. Who gives a fuck?

The ONLY relevant argument would be if someone’s rights were being infringed, so if that is NOT behind your objection to this total non-event, then wtf are you complaining about snowflake?

reminder: your position was that no one found this offensive.

 

[blastula]

Including the guy in your link. So, are you saying it was not bigoted? Or are you saying it was bigoted?

I'm saying I don't give a flying fuck because, (a) I wasn't there, (b) I'm not black or gay and therefore have no say in what may or may not have offend either a black person or a gay person, let alone a black gay person and most importantly, (c) that this is all a total red herring the Daily Mail concocted to sell ad space to beta cucks.

The reason the event organizers cut off the comedian's mic is because he was bombing for a half hour AND evidently being offensive to people in the audience while doing so. Period. There is absolutely no story here whatsoever beyond "Comedian Bombs - Mic Cut."

No, it is a story that some in the audience and the AAA took offense at an inoffensive joke so much that they kicked him off. That they were offended doesn't mean they were right to be offended. Note that Patel was removed right after the gay black joke.

The AAA is lucky Russell Peters couldn't make it the show.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqcavSXfLnU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Again, what someone does or does not find offensive is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. And what exactly do you mean by “That they were offended doesn’t mean they were right to be offended?” There is no “right” or “wrong” to what someone finds offensive. If it offends, them, then it offends them.

In regard to civil rights, NONE WERE VIOLATED, so that’s not even remotely an issue in any of this.

In the eyes of the people who invited Patel to do his set (and evidently the majority of the audience), they didn’t like it and after thirthy minutes of it finally told him to fuck off. They had every right to do that at any stage he spoke and for any reason they wanted or no reason at all. They could have just yanked him because they wanted to play God and kick him off their stage.

So the only issue you seem (and others) to have is one of irony and not being able to spot it. YOU got offended at something that I don’t think was offensive and are acting like a whiny little overly sensitive snowflake.

Which is ALSO a totally irrelevant non-point on my part. YOU got offended by something that I don’t think YOU are right to be offended by. So what?

Becuase there is NO POINT being discussed here in regard to Patel. He sucked; they yanked him. End of fucking story that is NOW being turned into what a bunch of whiny snowflakes on the right, apparently, find offensive. Like anyone gives a shit.