But how would that be logical? Admitting that there should be social consequences means that you admit that there is a problem with his content, yet you say that it’s bad to say it?
No, I'm saying that me objecting to you calling him pro-pedophilia doesn't mean I necessarily object to Netflix removing his material, or others cutting him off professionally. They are different things. People have the right to associate with who they want.
And if you mock victims of pedophilia, once again, you are supporting pedophilia. Whether you are, in your thoughts, liking pedos or not doesn’t matter as it doesn’t change your actions.
This simply does not follow. The context of the joke matters, the situation in which you do it. If you are known for black comedy, or doing it as a part of it, then that is part of it.
What point? From what I’ve seen, his point is to spread racist and discriminatory stereotypes, the pedo thing was just the culmination of the shit he said.
Yeah, that's always somewhat been part of his thing.
Because I didn’t mention other particularly nasty things about his “jokes” such as normalising the “africans with aids” thing that serves no purpose, and is one millimetre away from the 40 years old “africans are animals who fuck monkeys” racist propaganda. What is his point? That instead of mocking people who are having power and influence (such as him) you should attack victims, discriminated people, and show them as inferior? I’m sorry but if RG has a point, then this point is very nazi-like. Making everything I said even more true, and making his “jokes” even more problematic.
The "point" here being if you don't like his jokes, don't watch his material. That was his point.
I reject the premise that there are inherent rules to comedy.
I never said that there shouldn't be any social consequences. He can be removed by Netflix, lose job offers, be boycotted - but suggesting he is pro-pedophilia is a particularly nasty, slanderous allegation. Being deliberately offensive or nasty in your joke telling routine doesn't mean you endorse the topics you joke about actually happening.
You are free to think he is a dick for hid chosen themes of joking, but it doesn't mean he endorses pedophilia.
And I have no problems with child rape being the subject of a joke. It is obviously a hard MA, and not for everyone - but then that is part of RG overall point.
I don’t know his thoughts. But I know that he could not make that kind of jokes without at least being very complacent about pedophilia, and I would say that he probably considers that it’s not such a big issue.
This is highly speculative. It is possible to make what might be considered revolting jokes about anything without actually endorsing it. Plenty of comedians have done this in the past.
If you say that jews should be exterminated, are you a nazi? I would say that whether it’s the case or not, the impact of what you say serves the nazi ideology either way. And that’s enough for me to consider it a problem, especially if like in Gervais’ show, this message is completely unilateral and not defused at all.
I've seen plenty of grim jokes about Jews in relation to the holocaust or nazi germany from people, but at no point did I think that they were literally endorsing the holocaust. Also, Gervais jokes about all sorts of things. Are you suggesting this 'pro-pedophilia' joke thing is some sort of continual theme or just a one-off joke?
Sorry, your opinion on the quality of the joke aside... are you unironically suggesting that Ricky Gervais is pro-pedophilia? That he literally thinks it should be legalised?
"Warrior is expected to debut on Netflix in February 2024. If it does well, Netflix could presumably order a new season of the drama based on an original concept and treatment by Bruce Lee, sources tell Deadline exclusively."
Honestly, for all the objections I have when people decry modern TV and the golden age as ending, TV copying film and becoming bogged down in spin-offs and sequels will start to hurt the industry in terms of quality
I really hope we don't see a glut of spin-offs across the streamers. People should be less credulous.
The world is already somewhat 'consolidated' right now via services like Netflix, Hulu/Apple, Amazon content that mostly drops everything they make or commission internationally on day 1.
The point is that this all derives from a fundamentally archaic worldview. It's utterly absurd that I can't legally purchase or stream shows like Dummedag (an example) because I don't live in Norway. My only option in many cases is piracy. Do some of these studios not want people to purchase their content?
Here's my solution to this, the EU should've said: If you refuse to make your TV show legally accessible either to stream or to download for a certain country, piracy of that show within that country should be legal.
I’d be interested if people in Europe find the current system to be a significant hassle or not.
It just means people pirate. This really should've been solved some time ago. A TV show being accessible does not inherently mean that it must be streamed, it could be a digital download. This is why a Steam storefront-type setup should exist for TV with no blocks. You can buy any TV show you like, £10-15 a season (prices could vary obviously) and it's yours. Netflix and Amazon and Disney etc would exist alongside it as streamers. Or the EU should've thought about a pan-european streaming service.
The European Parliament should've just alternatively done this.
If you refuse to make your TV show legally accessible either to stream or to download for a certain country, piracy of that show within that country should be legal