Because I've seen it, and I can comment on it? The thread title is 'what's wrong with gervais', and it's an attack on him going off kilter for thing being taken out of context.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
What in God’s Name Happened to Ricky Gervais?
- Thread starter zsynqx
- Start date
Because I've seen it, and I can comment on it? The thread title is 'what's wrong with gervais', and it's an attack on him going off kilter for thing being taken out of context.
And you have expressed your opinion but that doesn't mean that is enough to convince anyone either.
I mean considering Gervais's twitter antics, it wouldn't be surprising that that bit was transphobic.
It'd be transphobic if the bit was "trans people are chimps" and that's not what the bit was.
He's just a fuckwit who is way too happy with being famous and rich, with that being the only thing he has going for him. The Office was great, but he had Stephen Merchant and Ricky is great at being a cunt. Everything else has been him trying to be loved as a good guy but he's so insecure and bitter he's gotta go with the whole 'oh do I offend you' which is basically as sad as the 'snowflake' bullshit.
If you can't answer, say so.
I'm not gonna waste half an hour on that.
And that is still not gonna make it more clear to people here who can't access Netflix for a reason or another which is my point.
It literally IS the snowflake BS.
I already answered.
You want me to break it down further by doing some kind of review or blog post waning on and on? It's a fucking stand up bit, of a bigger gig.
I answered you, you didn't watch and you're trying to do comment on content you haven't seen? come on.
I'm not commenting on the content.
I just find your argument lacking in comparison to the article linked in OP's source which has a more detailed explanation on why the stand up could be construed as such.
If I'm going to assess the argument based on secondary sources your post isn't weighing very high.
User Banned (3 Weeks): Hostility towards other members, arguing in bad faith, long history of similar behaviour.
Do you have an argument aside from what you think about what other people think who have seen it?
You literally can't talk about my argument in comparison to the article. Because YOU haven't seen the content. So kindly fuck off, until you come around to "wanting to see it" and stop raging about shit you haven't experienced.
It was transphobic because the bit was Gervais asserting that it's unreasonable for a famous transperson to not wish to be deadnamed and makes a direct comparison between transpeople wishing to be called by their proper name and gender to him demanding he's a chimp. He's denying Caitlyn's identity.
Comedy is always a divisive thing though, whether it be a show or a comedian in particular. I can't recall there being any that have been universally loved. I'm a big fan of Gervais, be it with or without Merchant. I recently saw his 'Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee' and just find him a funny dude. You can tell Jerry likes the guy too.
Your argument is extremely vague and basically "I've seen it, it's not transphobic believe me".
I'm asking you to expand on that because it's not an argument at all.
You've proven nothing, you're asking us to believe you.
And when asked for details you go "go pay Netflix to watch it" like seriously how can you not see how unreasonable that is?
One of the first things he said is that people confuse insulting people for their actions and for who they are. The entire "he was bruce back then thing" is the premise of it. It's sardonically in it's intent to refer to bruce and caitlyn different in pronouns. Because at the end of the day gervais slams on celebrity instead of being a person.
I can't expound on it short of reenacting it. I'm not asking anyone to believe me, I'm giving my opinion. Your opinion on this doesn't matter if you haven't seen it in full context. point blank.
Sorry, but that was actually a more serious part of his stand up, where he explained the reasoning for what he did (later accompanied by a joke, not involving a chimp: the one about meeting a doctor): Since he was referencing a time where Caitlyn was not named Caitlyn, he correctly used the name she had at the time. He did not reference her post name change as her name from before, but he reference her before name change.
You have trouble reading, I haven't given my opinion on it.
Your opinion is quite clear although the reasoning why is vague.
I used to like him until he made some jokes about demographics of people I care about, jokes that many people would say are "just jokes" but it kind doesn't become a joke when he constantly makes transphobic remarks, and is enough of an example of atheism gone awry, prime example how just about anything can be evangelized or radicalized.
Honestly? Fuck him. He isn't funny, he's an obnoxious transphobic idiot, this is just like all those other times beloved people turn out to be disgusting assholes, I mean look at how many times Rowling has retweeted transphobic crap. Again, as someone that cares about the issues of society, and the issues of racism and racial inequality, and of course Transphobia, as well as Homophobia. The kinds of things him and Chapelle have said are indefensible, this and the peterson thread are just clear cases of people with an agenda or an unwillingness to reconcile terrible views.
For anyone that is having issues understanding Transgender people, please read this thread:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/transgender-101.25656/
Things like this, are arguing the humanity of transpeople, you wouldn't argue the humanity of someone who is black or brown would you? If you would, I think you should re-examine yourself as a person.
Honestly? Fuck him. He isn't funny, he's an obnoxious transphobic idiot, this is just like all those other times beloved people turn out to be disgusting assholes, I mean look at how many times Rowling has retweeted transphobic crap. Again, as someone that cares about the issues of society, and the issues of racism and racial inequality, and of course Transphobia, as well as Homophobia. The kinds of things him and Chapelle have said are indefensible, this and the peterson thread are just clear cases of people with an agenda or an unwillingness to reconcile terrible views.
For anyone that is having issues understanding Transgender people, please read this thread:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/transgender-101.25656/
Things like this, are arguing the humanity of transpeople, you wouldn't argue the humanity of someone who is black or brown would you? If you would, I think you should re-examine yourself as a person.
The entire crux of the doctor's joke is "you don't like it when I use your old name, watch me skirt around the rules to say it over and over again since it offends you so much". Then he makes multiple jokes about Jenner's penis. THEN he goes on to compare being transgender to him being a chimp. The entire bit front to back is overtly transphobic.
I'm trying to understand why people think that bit wasn't offensive.
I've followed Gervais for quite some time and I can see why his critics are so harsh with him, I have more trouble seeing the counter argument however.
For example, I have trouble understanding how his "atheist" shtick is anything but played out at this point, if that's the starting point of his offensive humor he's not very funny.
I also fail to see how his humor is in any way brave or even new at this point.
And now I'd like to ask how the part Robin talks about could not be considered transphobic, too.
So what exactly is this "reasoning" for comparing transgender individuals to the concept of being transpecies? Not a single person has been able to say thus far, and just like them, you skipped over that part. They insist it exists in there somewhere without ever actually saying what it is, but if so, it shouldn't be hard to say in your own words what his reasoning is for comparing transgender individuals to made-up "transpecies" nonsense. Just sounds like bullshit "lol i identify as an attack helicopter lol" transphobic nonsense to me. If there actually is reasoning to that chimp nonsense, provide it, in your own words. Shouldn't be hard and the fact that it's like pulling teeth regardless for some odd reason seems pretty damn telling to me.
For this, it's easy, YOU haven't seen the bit. , maybe after you see it you can articulate it better?
Because the entire thing is about jenners celebrity status.
(this is the part about masculinity deprecation)
So maybe it's commentary on how often people are misgendered?
Humanity
Anyway, people should watch it themselves so they can form an opinion themselves. No matter what that opinion turns out to be
And this is what Ricky says about the chimp stuff, for anyone interested:
Personally i thought the chimp stuff was the weakest part of the show. Just wasn't that funny.
Sauce:
http://www./home/event/article-4951518/I-don-t-answer-says-Ricky-Gervais.html
There is no shame in watching it and forming an opinion based on actually having seen and processed it. Whatever that opinion might be.
Last edited:
Ok, so I watched the 1st part.
There's plenty of transphobic jokes in it, it's not even arguable.
And when it's not transphobic, he's making a sexist joke.
Like you may think it works or whatever but it doesn't change that it is what it is.
Someone earlier in the thread said that he wasn't subbed and as such couldn't watch the show.
There's plenty of transphobic jokes in it, it's not even arguable.
And when it's not transphobic, he's making a sexist joke.
Like you may think it works or whatever but it doesn't change that it is what it is.
It is not the argument.
Someone earlier in the thread said that he wasn't subbed and as such couldn't watch the show.
So let me get this straight.
he says he didn't mean to be transphobic and then he says that he is lying on stage. So the persona who is saying things he does not believe is not transphobic therefore he is transphobic?
Like you can't say that it is a lie AND you don't mean it because it is like a double negative
yeah not sure how to read that. I don't think he is transphobic in real life. He's too much of a reasonable guy for that. But then it's the question of why he still thinks he should make those jokes. I think he's aware of the fact that this material sells tickets. Better to be a subject of discussion than not to be talked about at all. I'm sure there is a commercial aspect to the decisions.
I thought most of the Jenner bit was actually pretty funny in the sense that he played with stereotypes. But he kinda ruined everything with the chimp bit.
I guess it's never fun to be the subject of a joke but to me it's about how the joke is layered. The Chimp stuff was unfunny (to me).
Last edited:
Going to have to disagree with you there. Carlin broke ground in terms of use of language in stand up comedy as well as discussing controversial content. I know Lenny Bruce may have been the first, but Carlin did push it to new heights. A majority of comics and fans of comedy consider Carlin one of, if not the greatest stand up comedian of all time. I would say Carlin and Pryor are the GOAT's of stand up comedy. Early Robin Williams stuff was damn good too.
User Banned (1 Week): Defense of transphobic content.
The reason is that the topic of the section is the outrage against comedy, not transgender* (what is the right postfix here?). He starts with a logical issue with the criticism of deadnaming wrt. Jenner, which is a reasonable point, but a good joke starter, because he can ridicule the argument brought forth. Then, the joke is to complain about unreasonable outrage while venturing into comments that could reasonably lead to outrage when used in a public speech (as opposed to the very legitimate use of Jenner's old name in the context where it was used), i.e. the chimp-joke. This makes for an obscure and funny situation in itself. On another layer, going beyond the context and to the moment-to-moment comedy, he uses self-deprecation to move the focus off transgender* itself while making some jokes about the chimp.
I think it was obvious that at several points in the performance, he was exaggerating his stance on things for comedic effect. He literally became famous as a comedian for playing a character with exaggerated narcissism, selfishness and self-importance. He taps into that character on stage at many points, like when he discusses how wealthy he is and how little he cares about children. He "lies" for comedic effect constantly.
You already know why. Most people dont understand or give a shit about trans issues
I don't think a lot of people understand how comedy works based on the banned users in this thread. I took a "film comedy" class in undergrad and I thought it was going to be a joke, but it was really interesting when we dug into how jokes work and what makes something specific funny. The Gervais bit is for sure transphobic if you dissect it.
That being said I remember having this exact same conversation with the banned user and it looks like they learned nothing. I guess it makes sense that "I was joking" is such a common excuse for saying horrible things nowadays.
That being said I remember having this exact same conversation with the banned user and it looks like they learned nothing. I guess it makes sense that "I was joking" is such a common excuse for saying horrible things nowadays.
He's the same Gervais he's always been, social media has ruined his sense of worth.
There are bits of gold in the new special, legit laugh out loud moments, but damn his Jenner schtick went on for way too fucking long and ventured into clear transphobic territory.
There are bits of gold in the new special, legit laugh out loud moments, but damn his Jenner schtick went on for way too fucking long and ventured into clear transphobic territory.
He's a bad stand up comedian. I don't think it's a coincidence that the best thing he's been involved in, The Office, was made at a point where he wouldn't have had the clout to enforce his vision on the making of it. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's completely talentless, his performance as Brent is clearly pretty great, but I don't think his writing ability is suited to stand up. His routines have been successful because he's Ricky Gervais, not because he's actually good at it. That HBO show where he was sat with Seinfeld, Louis CK and Chris Rock as though he's even remotely on their level was ridiculous, and I'm not even particularly a massive fan of those guys either.
I find it funny how most if not all specials are met with a thread here complaining about how unfunny the comedian is, or hurtful the content is.
Maybe Era isn't the target audience lol.
Marlon Wayans also released a special recently and he has some jokes regarding Caitlyn Jenner there too.
Maybe Era isn't the target audience lol.
Marlon Wayans also released a special recently and he has some jokes regarding Caitlyn Jenner there too.
On one hand, everything I've seen of Ricky Gervais suggests he's a grade A shitheel and it's hard to believe he was involved with the behemoth that was The Office.
On the other, some of the rhetoric in this article is straight up nasty and uncomfortable to read. Maybe I'm going soft.
On the other, some of the rhetoric in this article is straight up nasty and uncomfortable to read. Maybe I'm going soft.
Ricky grew in popularity due to others significantly helping him and balancing that awful one sided act he has.
At the time it was hard to tell, but Merchant really was the star of the podcast and Ricky in small bits intertwined was perfect. It's the reason why An Idiot Abroad worked so well, Ricky is barely there and when he is, he's not even that funny anyway. He's annoying if anything.
It's no fucking wonder Merchant wants nothing to do with Ricky, he seems a disaster to work with.
I don't care what anyone's beliefs are, but to constantly shove yours in people's faces and go on about it is so aggravating.
He's honestly unfunny unless it's mashed together with someone else that he can bounce off. I'm sure he knows it as well, which would line up with his insecurities.
At the time it was hard to tell, but Merchant really was the star of the podcast and Ricky in small bits intertwined was perfect. It's the reason why An Idiot Abroad worked so well, Ricky is barely there and when he is, he's not even that funny anyway. He's annoying if anything.
It's no fucking wonder Merchant wants nothing to do with Ricky, he seems a disaster to work with.
I don't care what anyone's beliefs are, but to constantly shove yours in people's faces and go on about it is so aggravating.
He's honestly unfunny unless it's mashed together with someone else that he can bounce off. I'm sure he knows it as well, which would line up with his insecurities.
I enjoyed the new special. It feels right in line with all his other stand up. Maybe your taste in comedy has changed. Nothing wrong with that.
He dug his own grave when he dragged that corpse of a joke for 10 minutes or so with no relevant point or humor. It started flat and ended worse because he didn't know when to stop and it wound up offensive.
I've probably seen this photo nearly 50 times now, but every time I do, I have to stop and appreciate how fucking bad it is. I can't get over it.
When he played David Brent, he wasn't acting. That's just what Ricky Gervais is like and it took a while for people to catch on
The Guardian did a walk-back-ish piece on their Humanity review:
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2...-transgender-jokes-caitlyn-jenner-transphobia
Personally, I think most of the show was extremely bitter. Gervais isn't a good stand up comedian and should go back to casting himself in TV shows.
I didn't think the Caitlyn Jenner stuff was transphobic, but I also don't fully understand the issues faced by transgender people. It seemed to me that it was more about the conflict between Caitlyn and Ricky post-Golden Globes than it was about trans people in general?
I could do with somebody explaining the concept of dead-naming to me I think. I mean, Caitlyn Jenner is famous and transgender. Does she refer to herself as being transgender? Or just a woman? If it's the former, what exactly is the problem in using her birth name when talking about her life and career pre-transition? Isn't that just the history of the person? I don't fully understand the issue at hand so if somebody could explain it to me using this specific example I would be very grateful.
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2...-transgender-jokes-caitlyn-jenner-transphobia
Personally, I think most of the show was extremely bitter. Gervais isn't a good stand up comedian and should go back to casting himself in TV shows.
I didn't think the Caitlyn Jenner stuff was transphobic, but I also don't fully understand the issues faced by transgender people. It seemed to me that it was more about the conflict between Caitlyn and Ricky post-Golden Globes than it was about trans people in general?
I could do with somebody explaining the concept of dead-naming to me I think. I mean, Caitlyn Jenner is famous and transgender. Does she refer to herself as being transgender? Or just a woman? If it's the former, what exactly is the problem in using her birth name when talking about her life and career pre-transition? Isn't that just the history of the person? I don't fully understand the issue at hand so if somebody could explain it to me using this specific example I would be very grateful.