[Humour] Jerry Sadowitz gig cancelled at Edinburgh Fringe

[The Clamp]

Honestly! They’ll throw you in jail nowadays, just for whipping your Wilton out in front of people.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

No surprise really. I was initially shocked that you can say the stuff Sadowitz does on stage without being arrested. But it’s art and there are clear warnings for ticket buyers.

Sadowitz’s material is designed to be the most offensive stuff you have ever heard, that’s the point. It’s about freedom of speech and introspection. You laugh out of shock that someone can say such vile stuff.

But it’s all fake. Unlike someone like Manning, JS has the opposite views and values to the incendiary bile his character spews. Remember, it’s just a character. It’s a fascinating experience to listen to him going through every sort of minority, one by one with incredibly offensive remarks. The idea, I think, is to measure your own reaction. Dozens ALWAYS walk out of his shows but you’re an idiot if you’ve not done your research.

And he’s a brilliant magician!

Quite. The lack of awareness, introspection and ****ing brains out there is dismal.

As noted, the difference between this and Manning is the difference between someone offering you an interesting new drink, and someone glassing you with a one (albeit, whether Double V counts as interesting is moot ).

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

….and Frankie Boyle is far funnier when it comes to offensive humour. And Jimmy Carr for that matter.

 

[BadFish]

I hope he finds a new venue for his show so his audience get to see him.

Venues need to be able to choose the acts they put on just as the acts can choose where they play.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...d-over-extreme-racism-homophobia-and-misogyny

The venue explain their reasons in some detail here.

I would be interested to hear more about this. I wonder if this was from JS or the complainers.

"The subsequent abuse directed to our teams is also equally unacceptable.”



Sent from my M2010J19CG using Tapatalk

 

[Lenny Rider]

So do they still book the Black and White Minstrels too ?

Come on old love, you must surely worry about this form of censorship?

Where does it stop?

Unfortunately it’s GB News but they do make a good point

https://youtu.be/OBArrDq4TuM

 

[London Irish]

It’s not censorship. No copper or any other branch of the state is doing anything to stop him doing his crap show. It only becomes censorship when the government bans stuff.

You know there is a real example of this today? Rees-Mogg has ordered government officials to comb the social media of individuals for the past 5 years to see if they have ever criticised government policy if they want to be invited as a guest speaker at a government department. Wonder if GB News or the Mail gonna cover this petty big brother stuff given it’s the government doing it rather than some venue somewhere

 

[London Irish]

The bogus free speech argument is nailed in this tweet here https://twitter.com/pickwick/status/1558784822889308160?s=21&t=dC0-uJxAezNOQa4YZNYxWA

 

[Stato]

Come on old love, you must surely worry about this form of censorship?

Its not censorship, its capitalism. A privately owned venue pulled the show because it says that the content of JS's show didn't align with the values of it's business. Virtually all of these type of fusses are over decisions made by privately owned businesses, not by lawmakers. They are just making business decisions and the people who are up in arms are the same people who have spent the last few decades telling us that the demands of the market are sacrosanct and that we shouldn't interfere with business decisions.

I saw Sadowitz back in the late eighties / early nineties and his act was utterly misanthropic. Its the angry railing of a man who feels failed by humankind. I laughed a lot, but was also made to feel uncomfortable in a way that no other comedian's live show has ever made me feel. It was designed to elicit this response. Mark E Smith is the only other artist I can think of who had the same seeming contempt for his audience. At its root, his act is about self-hatred, not hatred of others. His stage persona is the living example of Groucho Marx's famous line about never wanting to join a club that would have me as a member. I'm certain that were the anti-woke culture warriors to try to make a cause of this and provide him with an audience in the interest of free speech, they would last about twenty minutes before the pitchforks came out. He says things that are designed to needle liberals because his audience are liberals. If he were to be faced with an audience of conservatives, you can guarantee that he would immediately push the buttons that would outrage them, and, if the Mail is any clue, they are far far easier to outrage. All you have to do is point out that everything's not like it used to be.

 

[Hugo Rune]

I hope he finds a new venue for his show so his audience get to see him…….I would be interested to hear more about this. I wonder if this was from JS or the complainers.

"The subsequent abuse directed to our teams is also equally unacceptable.”

I’ve heard that JS is the completely different from his stage character. No surprise then to find it was not him abusing the staff at the theatre:

“The Pleasance also said that "unacceptable abuse" was directed towards some staff on Saturday from people phoning to criticise the cancellation.” BBC

 

[faoileán]

It’s yet to be confirmed but it seems the issue was with him getting his cock, or possibly a prosthetic cock, out to a woman in the crowd. If this is the case, I can fully understand why they have reacted the way they have.

I can confirm that a cock being waved in a woman's face was a bone of contention...

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Why on earth do people think this a free speech issue? A private venue can do what the hell they like. It's their FREEDOM. It's forcing them to put on someone because some rightwing bellends are jacking themselves off at the latest culture war claptrap from the billionaire press that is authoritarian

What a clueless take on things.

You do realise that it's not a left/right thing yes?

Some of the biggest names in comedy pushing back against this kind of thing are people who hold liberal views on the whole.

It's the culture war Muppets who label them right wing because those soft cocks have zero humour and contribute sweet **** all to the comedy space.

The true authoritarians are those who complain about such shows and want them shut down.

 

[Swansman]

Building your comedy around offensive humor indicates that you're either not very intelligent, or a very clever businessman who knows there are plenty of low-intelligence people out there willing to pay for your shite.

 

[London Irish]

What a clueless take on things.

You do realise that it's not a left/right thing yes?

Some of the biggest names in comedy pushing back against this kind of thing are people who hold liberal views on the whole.

It's the culture war Muppets who label them right wing because those soft cocks have zero humour and contribute sweet **** all to the comedy space.

The true authoritarians are those who complain about such shows and want them shut down.

You've just not answered any of the points people have made, have you. Not even attempted?

OK - the people who you call "soft cocks have zero humour and contribute sweet **** all to the comedy space" - do they have a right to say what they like about this show, yes or no? If it's yes (the only true free speech position), what the hell are you complaining about?

Now it's not them who have cancelled the show, it's the venue that have made the decision here, not the "soft cocks" right? You get that? So would you FORCE the venue against their will to hold this show? Please just give us some clue how you think this can work from your perspective. Just anything logical will do. How could this have possibly worked differently, apart from you stopping people having their say about something, or you forcing a private company to do something against its own will.

Now the "PC gone mad" so-called comedians can have a moan about it, it's their right along with everyone else. But unless they want to spend their own money promoting a Sadowitz gig and hiring a venue, who cares? Would be absolutely delighted to see them waste their money doing that by the way, go for it lads!

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

You've just not answered any of the points people have made, have you. Not even attempted?

I responded to your assertion that it's right wing bellends. Which is easily proven to be a poor take.

the who you call "soft cocks have zero humour and contribute sweet **** all to the comedy space" - do they have a right to say what they like about this show, yes or no? If it's yes (the only true free speech position), what the hell are you complaining about?

They can say what they like but to try and have things shut down because they are soft cocks then no, they can simply not go to the show.

Now it's not them who have cancelled the show, it's the venue that have made the decision here, not the "soft cocks" right? You get that? So would you FORCE the venue against their will to hold this show? Please just give us some clue how you think this can work from your perspective. Just anything logical will do. How could this have possibly worked differently, apart from you stopping people having their say about something, or you forcing a private company to do something against its own will.

The venue made the decision to have the comedian there in the first place.

So you're saying it wasn't the sooking of the soft cocks that made them change their minds?

They took a booking of someone they had no idea who they were?

Now the "PC gone mad" so-called comedians can have a moan about it, it's their right along with everyone else. But unless they want to spend their own money promoting a Sadowitz gig and hiring a venue, who cares? Would be absolutely delighted to see them waste their money doing that by the way, go for it lads!

Or maybe these venues cancel because of the vile abuse they cop from the queeirdos who have shown they will go after the venue operators and staff with far more vitriol than the people who are pissed off the show was cancelled.

 

[Stato]

Building your comedy around offensive humor indicates that you're either not very intelligent, or a very clever businessman who knows there are plenty of low-intelligence people out there willing to pay for your shite.

Wrong in both cases with Sadowitz. He's very sharp, but hasn't made money, because he wouldn't/couldn't make the compromises necessary to make a sustained TV/media career possible. He's incredibly protective of his recorded work and so if you haven't seen him live or caught the few UK TV shows he did in the nineties, you'd struggle to find much on the internet.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Building your comedy around offensive humor indicates that you're either not very intelligent, or a very clever businessman who knows there are plenty of low-intelligence people out there willing to pay for your shite.

Who deems what is offensive?

Or are you saying you get to dictate to others what is offensive?

 

[Swansman]

Who deems what is offensive?

Or are you saying you get to dictate to others what is offensive?

That'd be me, yes.

 

[London Irish]

"They can say what they like BUT" not if it disagrees with what I want - is that the sum of your argument? One flaw in that argument, they can actually say what the hell they like PERIOD. And there's not a damn thing you can do about that, apart from complain more? Up to you of course, feel free.

Unless anyone did anything illegal, and no one is saying any protester did, it doesn't matter how the venue came to their own decision. You still haven't answered how you can force them to put on the show. Because you can't force them.

I'd love JK Rowling to stage the Sadowitz gig herself on her own property, she'll be spoilt for choice as she has plenty no doubt. Might show everyone what she's really about these days

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

That'd be me, yes.

My Norwegian friend said Swedes are humourless bores.

 

[Stato]

Who deems what is offensive?

'Offensive' is a red herring here. Everything is offensive to somebody. Those who would have us all believe that there is a Woke Stasi dictating what artists can and cannot say are fixated on symptom rather than cause. Trace all of these stories to their root and they are all about balancing freedom with responsibility. We all like the idea of artistic freedom, but in a world where everything has a price, those who fear that they will be held responsible for the artist's freedom make a calculation and, in a society that is more litigious and where consumer rights are stronger, they tend more towards caution.

Financial power influencing art is not a new thing. There are countless stories from the early days of US television where broadcasting decisions were influenced by sponsor power. The art of the Renaissance was commissioned by rich and powerful patrons. There has never been complete artistic freedom unless the artist is willing to risk starvation. What has changed is that the power and money is now held by corporations whose raison d'etre is to minimise risk and maximise profit. One of the greatest risks is litigation and another is bad publicity.

The proliferation of bans on smoking in work places across the western world at the start of this century wasn't because governments and businesses were concerned for public health, it was in fear of class actions from employees exposed to secondary smoke. The Health and Safety boom may seem annoying to those who feel that their freedoms are being limited, but it has not happened because of the nanny state or complaints from lefties, it has happened because shareholders needed protection from potentially hugely expensive litigation.

The internet has hugely increased the risk to which corporations can be exposed to bad publicity. Customer complaints can become social media campaigns in the blink of an eye and those whose job it is to protect shareholder profit have reacted to this increased level of risk with the same increased caution as they have to legislative risk. It doesn’t matter whether the complaint comes from the left or the right politically, there will always be a cost benefit analysis and businesses will act accordingly: The Pleasance’s risk of creating upset amongst their staff and punters across multiple venues was greater than the money they could make from standing up for Sadowitz’s artistic freedom whereas the amount of money Spotify is making from Joe Rogan far outstrips the risk of bad publicity or cancelled subscriptions of old Neil Young fans.

In a lockdown podcast I heard Alexei Sayle tell a story of back in the nineties being sent to see a BBC lawyer over a sketch that may have upset Disney. He recalled how the lawyer’s attitude was pretty much ‘f*** Disney, we’re the BBC.’ The world has changed since then and very few, if any, arts commissioners have this kind of self confidence in the face of risk. This doesn’t mean that artistic freedom is under attack from either woke lefties, or from culture warrior right wingers, it is under pressure from the compromise that must be made with an unpredictable and uncontrollable world market.

The world has changed and its not going back and and though those of us who enjoyed the art may mourn the demise of the cutting edge stuff of our youth it is probably not helpful to try to force things back to a point where freedoms seemed greater. Especially as the freedoms of some meant the risk of exploitation of others. Taking just the BBC as an example, we can all wish for the return of the kind of self confidence that could see them not scared of Disney, but lets not forget that the same kind of feeling of being bulletproof was probably quite a contributing factor to it being an organisation that swept aside all complaints about the actions of Jimmy Savile. Having things in place to protect people as well as artistic freedoms is a balancing act, but law will generally lean towards protection. Business knows this, and, as business now runs everything, it is this knowledge, and not a freak generation of snowflakes, that is infringing on widespread access to art that pushes boundaries.