On Apr 24, 6:01 am,

On 24 avr, 05:55, Roger Blake <rogblak...@iname10.com> wrote:

In article <1177247246.564694.134...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, sirblob wrote:

because richards and imus were pure republican style racism, without

That's a pretty funny statement, considering that it was DEMOCRATS
who fought tooth-and-nail against the Civil Rights Act.

You must be very young and stoopid.

--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)

you stupid little *****. when the civil rights thing came in and the
democrats supported it, all democrats turned republican.

anyway, funny how republitards dont have any decent stand up comics.
why must that be?

Stand-up comedy is a complex subject.

A whole lot of stand-up is a guy who is saying what you wished you had
said, back when:

a) the cop caught you huffing in the park, when you were 14;
b) your ex-wife told you to be more sensitive and let your feelings
show;
c) the punks on the corner mentally (and verbally) felt up your
girlfriend as you walked from where you parked, to the open-air Stones
concert.

Stuff like that.

Stand-ups tend to lance festering sensibilities, and you feel better
afterwards, like having a boil lanced (or is it a lance boiled--I'm
not sure now). They provide a quick shot of catharsis.

So, stand-up comedy, in general, tends to appeal to those aspects of
life that you cannot effectively control or affect. If your life is
filled with such aspects (for whatever reason), you are a ripe
audience for a lot of stand-up.

The comics tend to present a wide spectrum of "product". If you need
to make fun of some aspect that troubles you, but you can do very
little about, you choose one of them because they are "funny". And
when you go to a comedy show to see new guys perform, you might often
come away deciding that the funny guys just so happened to be making
fun of stuff that *you* would like to laugh derisively at.

And in these comedy reviews, especially if you see them live in a
small venue, there are a lot of "technical" elements to evaluate, too,
if you really like the art form of stand-up--but that's another
subject.

So, if you were tired of hearing women/minorities/gays pissing and
moaning about how unfair everything was, and there was nothing you
could effectively do about it, why then you had Andrew Dice Clay to do
your talking for you! He was the Fonz gone bad, sticking it to these
wimps.

If you were tired of being hen-pecked, you had Henny Youngman:

"Who was that lady I saw you with last night?"

"That was no lady! That was my wife!" (drum roll...)

Now, a thing to bear in mind is that stand-up appeals mostly if there
are aspects that you are aware of that you cannot, or will not, take
care of yourself. It follows that if you are more confrontational, the
less you need comedy to take care of the problem. Therefore Apaches,
for example, didn't need comics. They just killed off the problems as
they arose. They had a simple social environment over which they had a
lot of individual control.

As societies get more complex, individuals lose a lot of control. To
survive in such a society, individuals tend to get more passive. So,
people who are more passive in nature, since they tend not to confront
the problems that face them, are in greater need of a surrogate to
thrash their problems for them.

That's what a lot of stand-ups provide.

You can use two "comedy" guys as representatives of the political
poles: Dennis Miller and Mort Sahl. To me, these guys are nearly
identical in basic presentation (non-physical comedy, topical humor,
fairly intellectual basis of comedy). It is just a question of what
they are making fun of, and if you agree that the stuff they are
making fun of should be satirized.

Now, in my view, you will likely always have more Mort Sahls than
Dennis Millers, merely because the left side of the political spectrum
tends to view itself as vitimized more than the right side--although
the right does their share of whining, too. But to members of the
traditional right, whining is a shame and a disgrace, and while you
may in fact indulge in it, it is a weakness to be resisted. Like
drinking before noon.

The left, on the other hand, seems to been much more tolerant of
whining (and really pretty much anything else that an avowed liberal
indivdual can do/express), and hence there is more whining from that
side of the spectrum.

And whining is an indicator that a stand-up is needed...

--Sawfish

Stand-ups tend to lance festering sensibilities, and you feel better
afterwards, like having a boil lanced (or is it a lance boiled--I'm
not sure now)

Now, in my view, you will likely always have more Mort Sahls than
Dennis Millers, merely because the left side of the political spectrum
tends to view itself as vitimized more than the right side--although
the right does their share of whining, too. But to members of the
traditional right, whining is a shame and a disgrace, and while you
may in fact indulge in it, it is a weakness to be resisted. Like
drinking before noon.

The left, on the other hand, seems to been much more tolerant of
whining (and really pretty much anything else that an avowed liberal
indivdual can do/express), and hence there is more whining from that
side of the spectrum.

And whining is an indicator that a stand-up is needed...

They have Dennis Miller, who went from being routinely unfunny to
being horrifyingly unfunny when he made the careerist decision to
become a right wing mouthpiece after he got fired from Monday Night
Football.