This world is going to hell in a hand basket. There are Jihad-planning Muslims in every nook and cranny of our streets, New Orleans is draining every penny from the pockets of our khaki Dockers, and all those damn Liberals can think about are trees, grass, and whatever “greenhouse gases” are. I mean, who is Al Gore anyway? Nothing but a presidential-race reject, if you ask me. How can he argue for the protection of his precious environment when his new 2008 Toyota Prius only cuts smog-forming emissions by 70%? That’s still 30% Mr. Green-y Pants…he acts like he cares about the environment when that 30% is depleting the ozone layer and contributing to the cesspool of carcinogens we call Los Angeles. Mr. Gore presents himself as “holier than thou” when it comes to environmental issues, but let’s look at reality people! He’s not entirely as “green” as he seems; his “hybrid Prius” is as much a part of the reason why lungs are black as my Range Rover, private jet, and yacht are.
Think about this: if people did what Mr. Gore wanted them to, millions of useless solar panels would blind everyone, causing them to crash their crappy plastic lumps of battery-driven “automobile” into lakes, marshes, and yes, you guessed it… even into trees! You’re telling me that the melted polyurethane wouldn’t do anything to harm the environment? Sounds counterproductive. We might as well condone the drunken driving of semi-trucks on residential side streets because it would be just as bad. With Al Gore behind the “environmental” wheel and boatloads of government money in his trailer, we’re headed for destruction.
It doesn’t make sense to me. Before those crazy Einstein-look-alike scientists got their grubby hands on things like pH tests and atmospheric monitoring equipment, the ozone layer and the trees were just fine! No one complained, and we used all the CFC’s we wanted to. Al Gore is always making it seem like normal American citizens care about things like this, but then again, he always has been a money swindler…constantly expecting a cut of the taxes to go toward funding his own tree-hugging projects. None of my friends are concerned with the environment; it doesn’t need to be a big deal until the radiation stops us from golfing at the country club on Sunday afternoons. George W. says not to fret, so we don’t fret, and neither should you.
It comes down to one thing, folks: either Al Gore and the rest of those liberals stop whining about imaginary holes in the sky or we’re destined to become a poor country and a prime target for terror (and I certainly don’t need those people driving up my gas prices anymore).
Monday, November 12, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Unforgivable
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0dJu1Jj7VTw
Racist humor is obviously a very sticky subject; slurs are emphasized and stereotypes are perpetuated. In this video, a black man is acting out a stereotype that he obviously isn’t a part of. He laughs numerous times during the recording, indicating that he, as a black man, is finding humor in the stereotype itself. This is a very hard thing to understand, especially because the video is incredibly graphic and offensive. He doesn’t simply say the “N Word” a few times… he says it every other sentence it seems. Stealing things, disrespecting women, having an unwanted pregnancy, and the apparent popularity of chicken are brought up to illustrate the stereotype of the black people that the man is trying to get across.
Why would this man put every possible aspect of the African American stereotype into a video, and then laugh at it as a black man himself? The reasons are limited because his actions contrast dramatically with the efforts of many other African Americans to eradicate this stereotype. A possible explanation for this is that the man is poking fun at how ridiculous, unfair, and unreal that the stereotype about their people that other races have created. The likelihood of there being an actual person who embodies all these horrible attributes, including stealing pants, condescending upon and raping women, being jealous of all other black men, demanding free food at restaurants, and being involved in random pregnancies, is fairly slim. If there was indeed a message in this video, it was that the current stereotype of African Americans has evolved into something so unrealistic that no human being could possibly be all of the things involved with that stereotype.
It’s interesting to look at the comments left by YouTube users who have watched this video. A large majority of the responses are positive. They praise the man in the video for being “so funny” and they follow up with a smiley face. I can see why this video is funny, however; it circulated among my group of friends for about four months. It was all the rave and people quoted from it every chance they had.
In our day and age (especially in our generation) racism is not as prominent as it once was. White people realize that stereotypes about black people are ridiculous and exaggerated, and we can poke fun at our culture for having let such a thing evolve. We laugh and think, “Yea, that is a pretty ridiculous stereotype”.
I can imagine that there would be a lot of African Americans who would find this video disgusting. His actions portray everything that African Americans deem untrue or unfair; there’s no way that they would approve of someone reintroducing this kind of stereotype into a culture, especially after so much has been done to fight against it.
Both sides of the story make sense to me. The man in the video is using irony and sarcasm very well in order to get his point across, and a lot of people understand that and take it with a grain of salt (ex: all of my friends who laughed at this video and practically lived their lives by it). However, I can also see why the video would cause anger and disgust. But, as we’ve mentioned before, humor is a double-edged sword, and whether or not someone finds this humorous really depends upon their own background and culture.
Racist humor is obviously a very sticky subject; slurs are emphasized and stereotypes are perpetuated. In this video, a black man is acting out a stereotype that he obviously isn’t a part of. He laughs numerous times during the recording, indicating that he, as a black man, is finding humor in the stereotype itself. This is a very hard thing to understand, especially because the video is incredibly graphic and offensive. He doesn’t simply say the “N Word” a few times… he says it every other sentence it seems. Stealing things, disrespecting women, having an unwanted pregnancy, and the apparent popularity of chicken are brought up to illustrate the stereotype of the black people that the man is trying to get across.
Why would this man put every possible aspect of the African American stereotype into a video, and then laugh at it as a black man himself? The reasons are limited because his actions contrast dramatically with the efforts of many other African Americans to eradicate this stereotype. A possible explanation for this is that the man is poking fun at how ridiculous, unfair, and unreal that the stereotype about their people that other races have created. The likelihood of there being an actual person who embodies all these horrible attributes, including stealing pants, condescending upon and raping women, being jealous of all other black men, demanding free food at restaurants, and being involved in random pregnancies, is fairly slim. If there was indeed a message in this video, it was that the current stereotype of African Americans has evolved into something so unrealistic that no human being could possibly be all of the things involved with that stereotype.
It’s interesting to look at the comments left by YouTube users who have watched this video. A large majority of the responses are positive. They praise the man in the video for being “so funny” and they follow up with a smiley face. I can see why this video is funny, however; it circulated among my group of friends for about four months. It was all the rave and people quoted from it every chance they had.
In our day and age (especially in our generation) racism is not as prominent as it once was. White people realize that stereotypes about black people are ridiculous and exaggerated, and we can poke fun at our culture for having let such a thing evolve. We laugh and think, “Yea, that is a pretty ridiculous stereotype”.
I can imagine that there would be a lot of African Americans who would find this video disgusting. His actions portray everything that African Americans deem untrue or unfair; there’s no way that they would approve of someone reintroducing this kind of stereotype into a culture, especially after so much has been done to fight against it.
Both sides of the story make sense to me. The man in the video is using irony and sarcasm very well in order to get his point across, and a lot of people understand that and take it with a grain of salt (ex: all of my friends who laughed at this video and practically lived their lives by it). However, I can also see why the video would cause anger and disgust. But, as we’ve mentioned before, humor is a double-edged sword, and whether or not someone finds this humorous really depends upon their own background and culture.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Blog 3
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_heart_device_allows_cheney_to
To me, the funniest thing about this article is the tone. The Onion continually does a fantastic job of using a serious sounding tone while implying heavy sarcasm at the same time. Often, this is a very hard thing to do; the writers are not overly sarcastic (which would undoubtedly take away from the humor of the piece), but they certainly get their point across.
This particular article is about Dick Cheney undergoing minor heart surgery and suddenly beginning to feel love after he regains consciousness. By using words like “stunned” and “mysteriously”, the writers begin implying that Cheney has never felt love before in his life. Then, in the second paragraph, they destroy any shadow of a doubt by stating that it is, indeed, the first recorded incidence of Cheney feeling compassion. This creates humor because the first paragraph hints at the lack of love in his life, while the second paragraph refers to compassion in general. Love is something one feels for family, friends, perhaps one’s nation in the case of a political figure. On the other hand, compassion refers to hope for the well being of a person or of people as a whole. By making this contrast, the writers highlight Cheney’s apparent lack of compassion for the entirety of the nation that he helps run.
Another thing I noticed was how feelings of love and compassion were categorized as “unexpected side effects”. The writers purposely “medicalize” normal emotions and turn them into symptoms in order to dehumanize Cheney. This is funny because it is, again, poking fun at the idea that Cheney does not feel compassion. It goes even farther to imply that Cheney is inhuman, or at best an abnormal human.
It is also mentioned that the “medical breakthrough” Cheney experienced could “…aid other Americans who suffer from acute mulishness and generalized misanthropy…”. The transformation of these terms into medical sounding terms, again, create the idea that Cheney is abnormal and is “suffering” from those particular “symptoms”. Also, I found it funny that they didn’t directly state that Cheney is a mulish misanthrope, but instead the writers used the phrase “…and other Americans”. It would have been very bland if the writers had just said “Cheney is mulish and he’s a misanthrope”, but talking around the subject made it funny.
In the fifth paragraph, the writers talk about how the defibrillator he had placed in his chest was working properly and that Cheney did not exhibit any physical abnormalities. This takes away any other possibility, other than Cheney’s mentality or soul, that could explain his feelings. The idea that he had a defibrillator implanted implies that something was wrong with his heart to begin with. It may be a stretch, but there is some symbolism in this. When someone acts without compassion, a common response would be, “Where is your heart?” or “Do you have a heart?”. The defibrillator figuratively induced feelings of compassion in a “shrunken and ulcerated black heart” (para 16). It is humorous that it took a mechanical device to create feelings in Cheney.
Other things that create humor in this article are things that have been exaggerated. An example of this is the description of Cheney taking off his shoes, rolling up his pant legs, and walking around the lawn barefooted. This idea was mentioned in order to create a new-found sense of kindness, happiness, and even normality to a degree in Cheney. Another example is Cheney mentioning in a speech that we are all, “…entwined in an unbreakable braid of human brotherhood”, which is extremely uncharacteristic of anything that Cheney would say, given his political background. The funniest thing to me was the photo near the middle of the article and the caption, which read, “Cheney with "new BFF" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) at the Capitol Tuesday”. The quotes indicate that Cheney called Reid his “BFF” (which is a term that is commonly used by teenaged girls), which is hilarious. An old, withering man calling another man, especially a democrat, his “BFF” is an extremely exaggerated situation that one would never find in real life. This fact creates the humor.
The irony in this article revolves around the idea that political leaders should be role models, since they are constantly in the public eye. Cheney, portrayed as a cold-hearted inhuman “thing”, is anything but a role model, especially to the liberals who are reading this leftist publication. The use of sarcasm and exaggerations, along with this irony creates humor.
To me, the funniest thing about this article is the tone. The Onion continually does a fantastic job of using a serious sounding tone while implying heavy sarcasm at the same time. Often, this is a very hard thing to do; the writers are not overly sarcastic (which would undoubtedly take away from the humor of the piece), but they certainly get their point across.
This particular article is about Dick Cheney undergoing minor heart surgery and suddenly beginning to feel love after he regains consciousness. By using words like “stunned” and “mysteriously”, the writers begin implying that Cheney has never felt love before in his life. Then, in the second paragraph, they destroy any shadow of a doubt by stating that it is, indeed, the first recorded incidence of Cheney feeling compassion. This creates humor because the first paragraph hints at the lack of love in his life, while the second paragraph refers to compassion in general. Love is something one feels for family, friends, perhaps one’s nation in the case of a political figure. On the other hand, compassion refers to hope for the well being of a person or of people as a whole. By making this contrast, the writers highlight Cheney’s apparent lack of compassion for the entirety of the nation that he helps run.
Another thing I noticed was how feelings of love and compassion were categorized as “unexpected side effects”. The writers purposely “medicalize” normal emotions and turn them into symptoms in order to dehumanize Cheney. This is funny because it is, again, poking fun at the idea that Cheney does not feel compassion. It goes even farther to imply that Cheney is inhuman, or at best an abnormal human.
It is also mentioned that the “medical breakthrough” Cheney experienced could “…aid other Americans who suffer from acute mulishness and generalized misanthropy…”. The transformation of these terms into medical sounding terms, again, create the idea that Cheney is abnormal and is “suffering” from those particular “symptoms”. Also, I found it funny that they didn’t directly state that Cheney is a mulish misanthrope, but instead the writers used the phrase “…and other Americans”. It would have been very bland if the writers had just said “Cheney is mulish and he’s a misanthrope”, but talking around the subject made it funny.
In the fifth paragraph, the writers talk about how the defibrillator he had placed in his chest was working properly and that Cheney did not exhibit any physical abnormalities. This takes away any other possibility, other than Cheney’s mentality or soul, that could explain his feelings. The idea that he had a defibrillator implanted implies that something was wrong with his heart to begin with. It may be a stretch, but there is some symbolism in this. When someone acts without compassion, a common response would be, “Where is your heart?” or “Do you have a heart?”. The defibrillator figuratively induced feelings of compassion in a “shrunken and ulcerated black heart” (para 16). It is humorous that it took a mechanical device to create feelings in Cheney.
Other things that create humor in this article are things that have been exaggerated. An example of this is the description of Cheney taking off his shoes, rolling up his pant legs, and walking around the lawn barefooted. This idea was mentioned in order to create a new-found sense of kindness, happiness, and even normality to a degree in Cheney. Another example is Cheney mentioning in a speech that we are all, “…entwined in an unbreakable braid of human brotherhood”, which is extremely uncharacteristic of anything that Cheney would say, given his political background. The funniest thing to me was the photo near the middle of the article and the caption, which read, “Cheney with "new BFF" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) at the Capitol Tuesday”. The quotes indicate that Cheney called Reid his “BFF” (which is a term that is commonly used by teenaged girls), which is hilarious. An old, withering man calling another man, especially a democrat, his “BFF” is an extremely exaggerated situation that one would never find in real life. This fact creates the humor.
The irony in this article revolves around the idea that political leaders should be role models, since they are constantly in the public eye. Cheney, portrayed as a cold-hearted inhuman “thing”, is anything but a role model, especially to the liberals who are reading this leftist publication. The use of sarcasm and exaggerations, along with this irony creates humor.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
blog 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVzBKGyoU5s
In my opinion, Will Ferrell is a comedic genius. He’s not just another guy standing on a stage trying to pull laughs out of people; he’s genuine. It’s absolutely mind-blowing to see him morph into 3 or 4 completely different characters within an hour and a half time span (something that takes an incredible amount of talent). Harry Caray, James Lipton (Inside the Actor’s Studio), Robert Goulet, Neil Diamond, Ted Kennedy, Janet Reno, and a plethora of other personalities have been portrayed by Will Ferrell. These characters are vastly different in their genders, ages, voices, and mannerisms, but he manages to look, sound, and act absurdly close to the real thing. My personal favorite is his impression of our oh-so intelligent president, George W. Bush. It is uncanny to me how he has every last stutter down; if you were to listen only, you would find it almost impossible to tell the difference between the two. He imitates Bush’s mannerisms in such a clever way, as to create humor, but without making himself look like a total fool. Of course, he makes Bush look like a fool, and it’s interesting to see just how he does it.
At the beginning of this SNL skit, “Bush” mentions that there are “some” who are beginning to doubt his administration. The audience is immediately delivered humor in the form of an understatement. Assuming that people in the audience have at least a slight idea of what’s going on in the world around them, they would find this very funny because in actuality, there are a great deal of people who doubt his administration. To contrast this, a rash overstatement is made when “Bush” calls anything he dislikes the “Axis of Evil”. This idea is emphasized and built upon throughout the skit, and by doing this, Bush’s irrationality is highlighted and made fun of. He includes many things in this Axis of Evil, including Iran, Iraq, “one of the Koreas”, Enron, Tom Daschle, the economy, France, Evil Kineval, the original Axis of Evil, Dick Cheney, and math (Dr. Evil didn’t make the cut). This provides humor not only through a ridiculous overstatement, but through an incongruity as well. In World War 2, the “Axis of Evil” was made up of Italy, Germany, and Japan…which are all countries. It is an incongruity that Bush has added every little thing that irks him or is critical against him. Of course this is an exaggeration of reality, but the point of this skit is to poke fun at how Bush misuses the phrase “Axis of Evil” in order to protect his administration.
In addition to pointing out his apparent irrationality, Bush’s stupidity (which he has shown in reality and publicly numerous times) is poked fun of throughout the skit. Going back to Meyer’s essay, the humor found in this may be a result of the audience feeling superior to Bush. An example of how his sub-par intelligence is made fun of is when Ferrell says that “one of the Koreas” is included in the Axis of Evil. There are obviously two Koreas, and he doesn’t even know which one he is in conflict with (this can also be related to the irrationality section as well). Another example is when he mentions Enron, says that people “probably wouldn’t get Enron”, then states that he doesn’t either, and that it “hurts his head” to think about it. Not only does this hint at his foolishness, but it also hints at the idea that he, as a president, has been hypocritical at times. He states that people don’t understand anything about the Enron situation, then he says that he doesn’t understand it either, which doesn’t really make much sense, especially because he’s the president. Of course, Ferrell isn’t necessarily saying that Bush didn’t understand the Enron situation… he is simply bringing out the idea of hypocrisy and stupidity in general.
Another idea that I found interesting was what he found American and what could not be considered American. He states that the economy isn’t “acting very well” and because of that, it’s un-American., and therefore, evil. He also mentions that the Axis of Evil (including the economy) “stands in the way” of what Americans value. By doing this, I believe that Ferrell is spoofing the fact that initially, people who didn’t support the War in Iraq were thought of as “communists”, “un-American”, or even “anti-American”. Again, Ferrell creates comedy though the use of exaggeration.
The last thing that really stuck out for me was how Bush was portrayed as a bully and a warmonger. He mentions that he doesn’t want to hear anything about Enron, unless it has to do with the American military “pounding it into submission”. This has to do with the idea that some people felt that Bush used too much military force, or even that he used war to “fix” things. Another instance of this is when he talks about France. After adding them to the Axis of Evil, he says, “How ya like them apples, France? Next time you’ll keep your mouth shut. Mess with Texas, and it’s straight to the Axis of Evil, got it?”. This, again, is poking fun at Bush’s military tactics. France did not support our War in Iraq, and therefore they were put on the “Axis of Evil”.
Ferrell does an awesome job of creating a parody of Bush, and I think that any other liberal-minded critic of the Bush administration would think so. While staying away from too directly poking fun at certain situations, he successfully creates replicas of reality when he makes up other situations (such as illustrating irrationality by adding Evil Kineval to the Axis of Evil, instead of talking about Osama Bin Laden, for example). He uses understatements along with overstatements and exaggerations to create humor effectively.
In my opinion, Will Ferrell is a comedic genius. He’s not just another guy standing on a stage trying to pull laughs out of people; he’s genuine. It’s absolutely mind-blowing to see him morph into 3 or 4 completely different characters within an hour and a half time span (something that takes an incredible amount of talent). Harry Caray, James Lipton (Inside the Actor’s Studio), Robert Goulet, Neil Diamond, Ted Kennedy, Janet Reno, and a plethora of other personalities have been portrayed by Will Ferrell. These characters are vastly different in their genders, ages, voices, and mannerisms, but he manages to look, sound, and act absurdly close to the real thing. My personal favorite is his impression of our oh-so intelligent president, George W. Bush. It is uncanny to me how he has every last stutter down; if you were to listen only, you would find it almost impossible to tell the difference between the two. He imitates Bush’s mannerisms in such a clever way, as to create humor, but without making himself look like a total fool. Of course, he makes Bush look like a fool, and it’s interesting to see just how he does it.
At the beginning of this SNL skit, “Bush” mentions that there are “some” who are beginning to doubt his administration. The audience is immediately delivered humor in the form of an understatement. Assuming that people in the audience have at least a slight idea of what’s going on in the world around them, they would find this very funny because in actuality, there are a great deal of people who doubt his administration. To contrast this, a rash overstatement is made when “Bush” calls anything he dislikes the “Axis of Evil”. This idea is emphasized and built upon throughout the skit, and by doing this, Bush’s irrationality is highlighted and made fun of. He includes many things in this Axis of Evil, including Iran, Iraq, “one of the Koreas”, Enron, Tom Daschle, the economy, France, Evil Kineval, the original Axis of Evil, Dick Cheney, and math (Dr. Evil didn’t make the cut). This provides humor not only through a ridiculous overstatement, but through an incongruity as well. In World War 2, the “Axis of Evil” was made up of Italy, Germany, and Japan…which are all countries. It is an incongruity that Bush has added every little thing that irks him or is critical against him. Of course this is an exaggeration of reality, but the point of this skit is to poke fun at how Bush misuses the phrase “Axis of Evil” in order to protect his administration.
In addition to pointing out his apparent irrationality, Bush’s stupidity (which he has shown in reality and publicly numerous times) is poked fun of throughout the skit. Going back to Meyer’s essay, the humor found in this may be a result of the audience feeling superior to Bush. An example of how his sub-par intelligence is made fun of is when Ferrell says that “one of the Koreas” is included in the Axis of Evil. There are obviously two Koreas, and he doesn’t even know which one he is in conflict with (this can also be related to the irrationality section as well). Another example is when he mentions Enron, says that people “probably wouldn’t get Enron”, then states that he doesn’t either, and that it “hurts his head” to think about it. Not only does this hint at his foolishness, but it also hints at the idea that he, as a president, has been hypocritical at times. He states that people don’t understand anything about the Enron situation, then he says that he doesn’t understand it either, which doesn’t really make much sense, especially because he’s the president. Of course, Ferrell isn’t necessarily saying that Bush didn’t understand the Enron situation… he is simply bringing out the idea of hypocrisy and stupidity in general.
Another idea that I found interesting was what he found American and what could not be considered American. He states that the economy isn’t “acting very well” and because of that, it’s un-American., and therefore, evil. He also mentions that the Axis of Evil (including the economy) “stands in the way” of what Americans value. By doing this, I believe that Ferrell is spoofing the fact that initially, people who didn’t support the War in Iraq were thought of as “communists”, “un-American”, or even “anti-American”. Again, Ferrell creates comedy though the use of exaggeration.
The last thing that really stuck out for me was how Bush was portrayed as a bully and a warmonger. He mentions that he doesn’t want to hear anything about Enron, unless it has to do with the American military “pounding it into submission”. This has to do with the idea that some people felt that Bush used too much military force, or even that he used war to “fix” things. Another instance of this is when he talks about France. After adding them to the Axis of Evil, he says, “How ya like them apples, France? Next time you’ll keep your mouth shut. Mess with Texas, and it’s straight to the Axis of Evil, got it?”. This, again, is poking fun at Bush’s military tactics. France did not support our War in Iraq, and therefore they were put on the “Axis of Evil”.
Ferrell does an awesome job of creating a parody of Bush, and I think that any other liberal-minded critic of the Bush administration would think so. While staying away from too directly poking fun at certain situations, he successfully creates replicas of reality when he makes up other situations (such as illustrating irrationality by adding Evil Kineval to the Axis of Evil, instead of talking about Osama Bin Laden, for example). He uses understatements along with overstatements and exaggerations to create humor effectively.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOe7EuHclyo
In debates about evolution versus creationism, one will notice that the arguing parties are rarely apathetic. The belief systems that correspond with each of these ideas are more often than not very passionately followed. Most people who call themselves creationists do so because they directly interpret various biblical texts; people who support the theory of evolution do so because of the evidence written in various scientific texts. Of course there are those who have supported the theory of evolution with the idea of “intelligent design” (perhaps to avoid stepping on the toes of either side), but despite this, it is difficult to “sit the fence” regarding this debate. Because of the fact that this battle of ideas is so controversial, it is interesting to me how Lewis Black can stand up in front of a large group of people and ridicule creationism without receiving a negative reaction. Granted that those who had interest in and paid to see a Lewis Black stand-up routine most likely have a general idea of what his comedy is like, it is very unlikely that all of them are non-religious supporters of evolution. Why do we, the internet audience, hear belly laughs instead of shouts of outrage?
In my opinion, the reason why Black receives a positive reaction is because he is able to build ethos initially. He establishes himself as part of the Jewish community, thus relating himself to those in the audience who also follow a religion. In addition, he reminds the audience that it was the Jewish who wrote the First Testament. He even goes so far as to make a point that Jewish people are, “good at bullshit” (referring to the First Testament) and that they needed something to distract them from the fact that they “didn’t have air conditioning” back then.
By first discussing these things, he is cleverly creating a means to keep people in the audience from feeling singled out; when he pokes fun at creationism and religion, he is poking fun at his own community as well. The situation would be entirely different if an atheist were to stand in front of a group in which the majority had, at least, a religious affiliation and tell them, from a non-religious standpoint, that creationism is absurd.
After doing this, Black is then able to use other tactics, such as sarcasm and parody. During the routine, Black mentions that he doesn’t believe in creationism because he has “thoughts”. It’s a horribly vague argument to make, but the simplicity of his reasoning is poignant. The use of sarcasm only strengthens his point that anyone capable of cognition doesn’t need to question the validity of the theory of evolution. The audience’s laughs are also bolstered by the cross-eyed and slack-jawed face that Black displays after making this potentially offensive and hurtful statement.
Black also talks quite a bit about fossils and their place in the evolution versus creationism argument. He says, “Whenever anybody tries to tell me that they believe it [the creation of the earth] took place in 7 days, I reach for a fossil and go, ‘fossil’”. Yet again his argument consists of essentially one word. Rhetorically speaking, this is representative of the fallacy of hasty conclusion, but as an audience we can assume that he is using the fossil as a symbol to convince the audience of the science behind the theory of evolution. This is effective in creating humor because, again, he is making things seem like they should be entirely obvious to anyone.
The fossil is also a key element in a segment where Black creates a parody of a man he met in Georgia. The man was convinced that fossils were the “handiwork of the devil”, and Black poked fun at him by comparing the “devil” to Wild E. Coyote, a cartoon character. He went on to mention that Wild E. Coyote was evil, had a fossil-making factory, and had hired minions to scatter fossils all over the earth. The presence of a cartoon character in his argument creates humor (as it does when he discusses how the “Flinstones” is not a documentary).
Overall, I think this video is a great piece of social critique. He finds an in with the audience and plays off of it for the entire routine. The way he delivers his comedy is incredibly unique: he shouts things (“Reality!!”), makes fun of his own community, and makes odd faces. In addition to making connections with his audience, he engages them, and people seem to love it.
In debates about evolution versus creationism, one will notice that the arguing parties are rarely apathetic. The belief systems that correspond with each of these ideas are more often than not very passionately followed. Most people who call themselves creationists do so because they directly interpret various biblical texts; people who support the theory of evolution do so because of the evidence written in various scientific texts. Of course there are those who have supported the theory of evolution with the idea of “intelligent design” (perhaps to avoid stepping on the toes of either side), but despite this, it is difficult to “sit the fence” regarding this debate. Because of the fact that this battle of ideas is so controversial, it is interesting to me how Lewis Black can stand up in front of a large group of people and ridicule creationism without receiving a negative reaction. Granted that those who had interest in and paid to see a Lewis Black stand-up routine most likely have a general idea of what his comedy is like, it is very unlikely that all of them are non-religious supporters of evolution. Why do we, the internet audience, hear belly laughs instead of shouts of outrage?
In my opinion, the reason why Black receives a positive reaction is because he is able to build ethos initially. He establishes himself as part of the Jewish community, thus relating himself to those in the audience who also follow a religion. In addition, he reminds the audience that it was the Jewish who wrote the First Testament. He even goes so far as to make a point that Jewish people are, “good at bullshit” (referring to the First Testament) and that they needed something to distract them from the fact that they “didn’t have air conditioning” back then.
By first discussing these things, he is cleverly creating a means to keep people in the audience from feeling singled out; when he pokes fun at creationism and religion, he is poking fun at his own community as well. The situation would be entirely different if an atheist were to stand in front of a group in which the majority had, at least, a religious affiliation and tell them, from a non-religious standpoint, that creationism is absurd.
After doing this, Black is then able to use other tactics, such as sarcasm and parody. During the routine, Black mentions that he doesn’t believe in creationism because he has “thoughts”. It’s a horribly vague argument to make, but the simplicity of his reasoning is poignant. The use of sarcasm only strengthens his point that anyone capable of cognition doesn’t need to question the validity of the theory of evolution. The audience’s laughs are also bolstered by the cross-eyed and slack-jawed face that Black displays after making this potentially offensive and hurtful statement.
Black also talks quite a bit about fossils and their place in the evolution versus creationism argument. He says, “Whenever anybody tries to tell me that they believe it [the creation of the earth] took place in 7 days, I reach for a fossil and go, ‘fossil’”. Yet again his argument consists of essentially one word. Rhetorically speaking, this is representative of the fallacy of hasty conclusion, but as an audience we can assume that he is using the fossil as a symbol to convince the audience of the science behind the theory of evolution. This is effective in creating humor because, again, he is making things seem like they should be entirely obvious to anyone.
The fossil is also a key element in a segment where Black creates a parody of a man he met in Georgia. The man was convinced that fossils were the “handiwork of the devil”, and Black poked fun at him by comparing the “devil” to Wild E. Coyote, a cartoon character. He went on to mention that Wild E. Coyote was evil, had a fossil-making factory, and had hired minions to scatter fossils all over the earth. The presence of a cartoon character in his argument creates humor (as it does when he discusses how the “Flinstones” is not a documentary).
Overall, I think this video is a great piece of social critique. He finds an in with the audience and plays off of it for the entire routine. The way he delivers his comedy is incredibly unique: he shouts things (“Reality!!”), makes fun of his own community, and makes odd faces. In addition to making connections with his audience, he engages them, and people seem to love it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)