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

[blastula]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Yeah, I don't understand that one, either. Where's the evil?

 

[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?

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

Reminder: no it wasn’t.

Here’s what this is about. A right wing alpha dog propaganda mill (Daily Mail) blew their dog whistle for all the beta cucks to dog pile on an “other;” in this case, liberal college kids, because, of course, liberal college kids are now the most feared voting demographic by the right wing alpha dogs.

So the beta cucks are all supposed to now band together against this other in derision and judgement, ironically not realizing that it is actually they who are being overly sensitive toward others who they are claiming are being overly sensitive.

Iow, you are all barking at what you are told to bark at, but not a one of you has questioned why you should bark in unison at what a college crowd does or does not find offensive in a comedy set none of you saw or would ever see.

Demonize the “other” that you are told to demonize, so that you all have a reason to maintain your beta pack at the direction of your alpha controllers. It’s as pathetic as it is transparent and why any of you would ever accept such lower class treatment is truly a mystery to all of the people who will eventually be your bosses sitting in that college auditorium.

 

[TSwizzle]

It’s as pathetic as it is transparent and why any of you would ever accept such lower class treatment is truly a mystery to all of the people who will eventually be your bosses sitting in that college auditorium.

None of these liberal art student snowflakes will be bosses of much. They will be Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas. If they are lucky. Drama queens don’t get very far.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It’s as pathetic as it is transparent and why any of you would ever accept such lower class treatment is truly a mystery to all of the people who will eventually be your bosses sitting in that college auditorium.

None of these liberal art student snowflakes will be bosses of much. They will be Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas. If they are lucky. Drama queens don’t get very far.

How far have you gotten?

 

[untermensche]

Is being finished the same thing as being removed?

 

[Mumbles]

Demonize the “other” that you are told to demonize, so that you all have a reason to maintain your beta pack at the direction of your alpha controllers. It’s as pathetic as it is transparent and why any of you would ever accept such lower class treatment is truly a mystery to all of the people who will eventually be your bosses sitting in that college auditorium.

Again (and this isn't really aimed at you per se), this all seems pretty easy. If you're a comedian:

1) tailor your set to your audience. A bunch of jokes about black people isn't going to fit well in a celebration of different Asian culture held in hopes of showing unity.

2) don't berate your audience.

That's the entire conflict. Really, this is all there is. And good comedians normally do this anyway.

ETA: THis does, as you say, come back to these "LOOK AT THIS AND BE OUTRAGED!!" news posts you see every now and then. The recent angry reporting on some tweets mocking the RUdolph the Red Nosed Reindeer animated special they show every year is an example.

 

[Underseer]

So if freedom of speech means that private institutions have to be forced to provide a platform for anyone who wants it, why aren't all the conservatives and libertarians in this thread concerned about the fact that FOX News and the entire network of right wing radio stations are viciously attacking my free speech by refusing to give me my own show?

Isn't it funny how their peculiar brand of "free speech" only seems to apply when it is used to defend racists, woman-haters, fascists, etc.

DISCLAIMER [ent]mdash[/ent] I sincerely apologize for suggesting that fascism is a bad thing, and I sincerely hope that no conservatives or libertarians had their delicate feelings hurt by my suggestion that maybe fascism is a bad thing. Please don't be offended!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So if freedom of speech means that private institutions have to be forced to provide a platform for anyone who wants it, why aren't all the conservatives and libertarians in this thread concerned about the fact that FOX News and the entire network of right wing radio stations are viciously attacking my free speech by refusing to give me my own show?

Isn't it funny how their peculiar brand of "free speech" only seems to apply when it is used to defend racists, woman-haters, fascists, etc.

DISCLAIMER [ent]mdash[/ent] I sincerely apologize for suggesting that fascism is a bad thing, and I sincerely hope that no conservatives or libertarians had their delicate feelings hurt by my suggestion that maybe fascism is a bad thing. Please don't be offended!

Undersser, have you still not given up your fascism, racism and woman hating? You really should eh?

 

[dismal]

Editorial from the guy:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/...e&version=highlights&contentPlacement=7&pgtyp

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Editorial from the guy:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/...e&version=highlights&contentPlacement=7&pgtyp

Let's deconstruct. First, from his own words (redacted to reveal the pertinent parts):

I performed stand-up as part of an annual event put on by the Asian-American Alliance at Columbia, and about 20 minutes into the show, my microphone was cut off....It was because three student organizers came onstage and politely told me they were going in a different direction with the next 30 minutes of my remaining time after deciding my material was offensive.
...
The joke bombed — total silence in the crowd of several hundred students — but I didn’t think anything was abnormal. I carried on and went back to getting some laughs. Five minutes later, I was asked to leave.
...
Do I think that students missed out because I didn’t finish my set? Of course I do — it’s my material. Do I think maybe I would have gotten to stay if I hadn’t told that joke? I don’t know. The rest of my set was just me yelling, “Columbia rules, Dartmouth drools!”

Clear? By his own account, he was doing his act for a good twenty minutes before his mic was cut. At about the fifteen minute mark, he evidently told the "gay black" joke, it bombed, he went on to other material--that evidently consisted of him just yelling, "Columbia rules, Dartmouth drools!" for five fucking minutes--and then at the 20 minute mark, they cut his mic.

What he omitted, of course, was what was related by one of the audience members that I had quoted, which was that prior to the particular joke, he had also evidently picked on a particular audience member for a notably long and painful time, which the crowd didn't respond well to and did other such crowd work, which evidently also did not go very well either. I believe phrases like "sucked the air out of the auditorium" and "trainwreck" were used and that was, again, before the "gay black" joke.

So, at least fifteen minutes of a comedian in a trainwreck of a set--which is understandable why he would either not include that part in his own defense or otherwise just gloss over it (perhaps he wasn't even aware it was an issue)--that included the self-admitted gay black joke bomb and then, by his own account, five minutes of yelling "Columbia rules, Dartmouth drools!" and then his mic is cut.

Again, for anyone who hasn't been to a comedy club, five minutes is actually a really long time onstage, especially when one is bombing as hard as this guy evidently had been for at least some lengthy part of his set prior, let alone using it to repeatedly shout such an asinine phrase, that I would guess was the result of the fact that he knew he had lost the crowd long before just one joke bombed.

So, we now have a better idea--confirmed by the comedian's own account--that it wasn't just one comment. If that were the case, they would have cut his mic immediately upon hearing the offensive joke. Instead, he's done lengthy crowd work that no one thought was very funny, says this other joke that bombs--total silence in the crowd no less--and then five minutes of inane repetition. Then, mic cut.

I.e., exactly as I said before. Mercy kill.

To his credit, he does note:

The student organizers were within their rights to pull me offstage; people are just as within their rights to be offended by anything, as comedians are within their rights to say anything. I believe the student leaders were wrong to cut my mic, but as a person, I cannot control how people think and how they react.

Which just brings us back again to what exactly is pissing off anyone itt about any of this non-story? You're being ironically overly sensitive about a group of college kids who you don't know, but think were overly sensitive to a comedian you don't know and in spite of the fact that none of you were there.

Anything missing beta cucks? Your dog whistle is blowing. Point to the "other" in ironic derision and judgement, because there sure as shit isn't any other point being made here.

 

[blastula]

Which just brings us back again to what exactly is pissing off anyone itt about any of this non-story? You're being ironically overly sensitive about a group of college kids who you don't know, but think were overly sensitive to a comedian you don't know and in spite of the fact that none of you were there.

Who do you think is pissed here besides you? I just think they were being stupid for removing him. That applies whether it's a big story or not. Besides, it's just as much a non-story as the "Baby it's cold outside" story but curiously you take the opposite stance there. Are you there being overly sensitive about the song?

 

[Trausti]

~1994

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Which just brings us back again to what exactly is pissing off anyone itt about any of this non-story? You're being ironically overly sensitive about a group of college kids who you don't know, but think were overly sensitive to a comedian you don't know and in spite of the fact that none of you were there.

Who do you think is pissed here besides you?

Several, including you.

I just think they were being stupid for removing him.

Based on? As I have constructed from an eyewitness account and the comedian's own perspective, what happened was a comedian bombed onstage for a good ten minutes at least. As the spiral down continued, he evidently got more and more offensive and antagonistic until finally ending his "trainwreck" of a set with five minutes of shouting nothing but "Columbia rules; Dartmouth drools!" until, finally the organizers mercy killed him.

He bombed and was being increasingly offensive so they cut his mic rather than let him continue to shout "Columbia rules; Dartmouth drools" for thirty more minutes. How is that stupid?

Besides, it's just as much a non-story as the "Baby it's cold outside" story but curiously you take the opposite stance there.

Actually, no, it's the exact same stance. It's a matter of sophistry fueled by ignorance and taking things out of their proper context.

 

[blastula]

Who do you think is pissed here besides you?

Several, including you.

Point out where then. This is you:

Gee, you're such a macho tough guy TSwizzle!

Is it beta cuck snowflake?

Nobody gives a flying fuck what you think is or is not offensive to someone else.

I'm saying I don't give a flying fuck because,

Who the fuck cares what goes into your decisions?

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.

But that wasn't the end.

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?

Again, what someone does or does not find offensive is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

YOU got offended at something that I don’t think was offensive and are acting like a whiny little overly sensitive snowflake.

But why bring up that anyone is pissed anyway? According to you, a person can't be wrong for what they find offensive.

I just think they were being stupid for removing him.

Based on? As I have constructed from an eyewitness account and the comedian's own perspective, what happened was a comedian bombed onstage for a good ten minutes at least.

I already explained this, it's that they thought a non-offensive joke was offensive. The AAA said he was removed for being offensive and so did the comedian:

It was because three student organizers came onstage and politely told me they were going in a different direction with the next 30 minutes of my remaining time after deciding my material was offensive.

He bombed and was being increasingly offensive so they cut his mic rather than let him continue to shout "Columbia rules; Dartmouth drools" for thirty more minutes.

You really think he meant that literally?

Besides, it's just as much a non-story as the "Baby it's cold outside" story but curiously you take the opposite stance there.

Actually, no, it's the exact same stance. It's a matter of sophistry fueled by ignorance and taking things out of their proper context.

You've argued here that if someone is offended, you can't argue against them. In the other thread you are arguing it's wrong to find that song offensive. So, which is it?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Point out where then.

61

But why bring up that anyone is pissed anyway?

(A) Because of the irony, hence my pointing out that they were being overly sensitive about a group of college kids who they don't know, but think were being overly sensitive to a comedian they don't know and in spite of the fact that none of them were there.
(B) Because it's a right wing bonding tactic.

According to you, a person can't be wrong for what they find offensive.

Not quite. I said people are allowed to find anything they want offensive, so other people complaining that someone else finds something offensive that they don't is not newsworthy.

I just think they were being stupid for removing him.

Based on? As I have constructed from an eyewitness account and the comedian's own perspective, what happened was a comedian bombed onstage for a good ten minutes at least.

I already explained this, it's that they thought a non-offensive joke was offensive. The AAA said he was removed for being offensive

Those are not equivalent. You are specifying one particular joke as the sole reason in your first sentence, but then stating the AAA removed him for "being offensive" in a general sense.

As you note, so did the comedian:

It was because three student organizers came onstage and politely told me they were going in a different direction with the next 30 minutes of my remaining time after deciding my material was offensive.

Not just the one joke; the "material" was offensive. Iow, what he did to the crowd, what he shouted for five minutes at the end until it was too much to take and the gay/black joke; all of it was a "trainwreck" of a set that the crowd was not responding to and so the organizers finally killed it. Their official statement and eyewitness accounts likewise confirms this (emphasis mine):

In an official statement released on Dec. 3, AAA stated that while they acknowledge that discomfort and safety can co-exist, the discomfort Patel caused with his remarks and overall performance opposed AAA and cultureSHOCK’s mission to celebrate, empower, and explore identity in a safe space.

Adam Warren, CC ‘22, was in the audience Saturday night. Warren said that AAA made the right decision to remove Patel from the stage due to the nature of his jokes, which contradicted the sensitive nature of the event itself.

“The message they were trying to send with the event was opposite to the jokes he was making, and using people’s ethnicity as the crux of his jokes could be funny but still offensive...He definitely wasn’t the most crass comedian I’ve ever heard but for the event it was inappropriate,” Warren said.

Jokes, plural. "Remaks" plural and "overrall performance."

And just for shits and giggles, I'll re-quote the audience member I previously quoted:

The news articles I’ve read give the impression that Patel told some controversial jokes that caused PC outrage, but the performance was just a trainwreck. While Patel started with strong laughs, he soon hit a controversial joke that earned mixed reactions. Instead of moving on, Patel warned us that he’s from an older generation (this guy is only 32), and then delivered the usual condescending and presumptuous spiel about how we need to learn about the “real world.” I thought, “Relax, you just got on stage.” Patel presented himself as arrogant and almost contemptuous toward the audience he was meant to entertain. Later, he even said, “Well, I’m already paid,” setting the tone of his performance.

The atmosphere throughout the remainder of the routine was uncomfortable with a few occasional laughs. While it’s normal in stand-up to pick an audience member to dialogue with, Patel just kept returning to the same girl to ask her painfully drawn out questions, as if he were mining material for a routine he had not prepared. He asked another audience member personal questions about their parents in a room full of strangers. To me, his routine was strangely obsessed with Black people, my favorite part being when he questioned why there was so much online outrage that Black actors weren’t nominated at the Oscars in 2016, but not for Asian actors. Patel’s anti-Blackness jumped out: The hashtag was #OscarsSoWhite, not #OscarsNotBlack.

His blatant anti-Blackness leads me to the most talked about part of the performance.

The joke went like this: Patel came to the stellar realization that being gay can’t be a choice because “no one looks in the mirror and thinks, ‘this black thing is too easy, let me just add another thing to it.’” To a non-Black, non-queer person, it might be novel. But if you’re Black and gay, you don’t need a straight South Asian guy to point out that your life is hard because you’re Black and gay. That’s not insightful––it’s painfully unoriginal. “I wouldn’t choose to live with homophobia while facing racism,” has crossed the minds of queer Black people, probably in a moment of distress or when faced with homophobia in their own community.

This is the issue with telling jokes about other people’s identities: It’s hard to grasp the intricacies of a life you haven’t lived. Personally, I think comedians should be allowed to tell jokes about different communities, but they often end up falling into clichés, stereotypes, or just predictable material. Patel brought himself on stage to perform a tired joke, the punchline being marginalized struggles about which he has no true insight. Some may argue that he was making a comment on society’s racism and homophobia, but for whom? I watched a brown man use the experiences of Black people to make white people ponder and laugh while two of my gay Black friends cringed.

Patel’s mic wasn’t just cut off because he told offensive jokes to a sensitive, snowflake audience, which is the narrative that I see being talked about. He was booted off the stage because he sucked the energy out of an entire auditorium. When he told the gay Black joke, even he noted the tension. His routine was the antithesis of what cultureSHOCK stood for. He stepped into an uplifting atmosphere and soiled it, which is the opposite of what he was meant to do as a hired entertainer performing at someone else’s event.

Again, he was bombing, he evidently took it out on the audience (a common refrain for bombing comedians) and they mercy killed him. End of story that a right wing propaganda mill nevertheless tried to turn into a dog whistle to beta cucks all pointing at college kids for the wrong reasons and in the wrong context.

He bombed and was being increasingly offensive so they cut his mic rather than let him continue to shout "Columbia rules; Dartmouth drools" for thirty more minutes.

You really think he meant that literally?

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Is there some other part of his statement we are not to take literally as well?

Again, have you ever seen what can happen when a comedian bombs and the audience turns on them? It can get ugly fast, like when Michael Richards tried to make a comeback or when Bill Hicks famously loses it not once, but twice in the same set.

Besides, it's just as much a non-story as the "Baby it's cold outside" story but curiously you take the opposite stance there.

Actually, no, it's the exact same stance. It's a matter of sophistry fueled by ignorance and taking things out of their proper context.

You've argued here that if someone is offended, you can't argue against them.

Against the fact that they found something offensive. That is what people itt are doing; they are saying that what the college kids found offensive is not offensive to the respective people itt, therefore the college kids should not find it offensive. They are saying that they--the people itt--can dictate what others find offensive and that's false.

In the other thread you are arguing it's wrong to find that song offensive.

Wrong again. In that thread, I am arguing that the song is not about rape or condoning rape, therefore it is wrong to say that it is. You are perfectly free to find the song offensive, but what you are not free to do is say that it condones or is about rape and that is the reason you find it offensive. That is false. It is not a song that condones or is about rape, so that cannot be the reason you find it offensive. You can find it offensive for other reasons, but if that's the one, then no, because that isn't true.

There is a distinct difference between having a right to find something offensive and stating, "This X is about Y and that is why I find it offensive," especially when this X is not in fact about Y.

What the audience found offensive about Patel were numerous bits he did, his attitude and his overall performance. Iow, they found him offensive. It wasn't about finding any particular X is about Y when X is not in fact about Y the way the Daily Mail (and others itt) tried to make it about--it wasn't just one joke he told and therefore we could similarly deconstruct that one joke--it was the overall performance.

"I found the guy offensive" is a general statement and nobody can say, "You have no right to find him offensive" or "I didn't find him offensive, therefore you shouldn't find him offensive." That's patently absurd.

"I found the guy offensive because he said my mother fucks donkeys," however, is a specific reason that can be investigated and either confirmed or disavowed and if it were discovered that he never said any such thing (i.e., that the reason does not hold up), then, yeah, you can still find him offensive for other reasons, but not that particular one, because it's false. He did not in fact say that your mother fucks donkeys.

Itt, the audience evidently found the guy offensive. Generally. It had to do with his attitude, his material, his "overrall performance" etc. Not any one thing as the Daily Mail (and others) have tried to make it all be about. That is false.

ETA: In both threads, my position has been the same. It's about sophistry and proper context. In the other thread, people were cherry-picking a particular line from the song ("Say, what's in this drink") and taking it out of context to impose their own context upon it (i.e., spiked with a date rape drug or the like) and then using their new imposed context as the reason they find it offensive. That is clearly wrong.

Itt, people are taking the "gay/black" joke out of context, imposing their own context upon it (that's not offensive to me) and then using their new imposed context as the reason they are finding today's "overly sensitive" youth offensive, etc. This is clearly wrong.

Same thing.

 

[Axulus]

The comedian did an interview with Joe Rogan recently. Here is where he talks about the incident:

[Youtube]https://youtu.be/3n9CsdcLP4g[/youtube]

He claims that the set was going fine and was not bombing, counter to Koy's insistence that he was bombing (which seems to be based only on one or two people's opinions). The black gay joke did bomb but he says he recovered. Also, he didn't lecture the students until he was told he had a few minutes to finish up and end his set.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He claims that the set was going fine and was not bombing

What a shock that a comedian would not admit (at a later date) that he was bombing.

counter to Koy's insistence

It was not my “insistence.” It was based on what an eye-witness audience member related, what the official report had corroborated as well as what the comedian had conceded in an earlier interview.