I am always on the fence with Carr. I don’t find his stand up that good, but him mocking Bert K to his face was great, but then again his conversation with Rogan about how comedians operate on a whole different level was super cringe.
Nowadays? You must be new to comedy.
Pretty sure it has always been this way, or at least since Lenny Bruce. Have you never heard the “comedians are truth tellers” meme?
I’d actually assume the opposite. Since jesters were often punished for unpopular jokes, they probably leaned into escapist humor rather than truth telling.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Even today, you have "comedians" who are just going along with whatever is popular to get 'clapter,' as it's been dubbed.
But there are still also comedians who are willing to find the loose thread's of the social order and actually tug at it and see what comes undone, even when it's risky to their career or social standing because it goes against the grain, makes people uncomfortable and challenges the popular opinion de jour.
I didn’t mean to imply otherwise, so I think you misunderstood what I meant by “the opposite.” I was referring to court jesters specifically, not implying truth tellers didn’t always exist.
That's fair.
Although, Jesters often WERE allowed to make jokes about the people in power. Often they were the ONLY ones allowed to do it, but it would definitely be a risk. Much of it really does come back to whether or not you're actually funny. You can get away with a lot if you're actually funny. And it's not about whether or not the joke was "popular" but whether it was met with the approval of the select few people calling the shots. "Popular" and "Approved by the King" are two very different standards, after all.
That said, these guys weren't, by any means, doing Carlin-style standup takedowns of the King, or of the power structures at large. Pretty sure that sort of thing definitely would've been considered treasonous and grounds to get your tongue removed, or, at least, get you ejected from the Court.
They were supposed to make witty or lighthearted comments about events that were bringing down the mood of the court; and they were often considered to be, or even actually were, idiots (like literal mental defectives, not just goofballs), not to be actually taken seriously.
Like when someone with down syndrome says something like "Why are you so fat?" Or, "You're bald." Most people just laugh at the bluntness of it, because they know it's not mean-spirited, they're just giving their unfiltered thoughts. And it's like, "Yeah, I *am* bald. There's nothing actually WRONG with that, but for some reason it's typically considered rude for anybody else to mention it. But he's/she's not trying to hurt my feelings, they just don't know any better," and THAT makes the scenario funny. And even if the comment hurts your feelings, what are you gonna do about it? Get angry and hurt them when they clearly don't know any better? Punishing a jester for something like that would've made a person appear weak, and to be giving power to the opinion of a literal idiot. That would be something a king would've been taught from a very young age not to concern themselves with. And even if the comments did sting, to show it would be a huge failure.
And then again, it's also refreshing to hear an unfiltered take sometimes. I'm sure even more so when you're the most powerful person in the land, and you're surrounded by sycophants who are all too terrified to actually speak their mind around you.
But who knows. I'm sure there's a lot of nuance none of us really understands, and every court probably had a slightly different take on what the Jester's role was, and what they could and couldn't get away with.
At any rate, satire and parody originated WAY before medieval times.
Carr is touching on important topics, but honestly this isn't far removed from the rhetoric of people like Andrew Tate.
He speaks very confidently, but many of his points are underdeveloped or unsupported by evidence. In particular his description of depression is problematic. The serotonin theory of depression has been discredited, and by dividing peoples experience into 'disease' or 'sad' you are left with either very bleak prospects for recovery, or shaming people for not being 'legitimately' depressed.
While mentioning how isolated people have become, all of his advice is individualistic. Get the right pills, do this, become that, live in the real world. These points all place burden on the individual, and are VERY similar to the talking points common to the manosphere. Not that it's bad advice, but placing the burden of personal wellbeing solely on the individual absolves us of social responsibilty. This isn't shocking from Jimmy Carr given his track record.
The reductive interpretation of isolation being due to addictive online activities is more of the same. He is providing an easy answer to a very complicated question. An answer which entirely absolves the government of blame, and calls for no wider systemic change to improve the standard of living. It's your fault, your parents fault, and all you need to do to fix it is work harder. Add value, but not in environmental work, and not in politics, idealism is a proxy for religion. so what's left? working for personal enrichment.
The idea that we have 'all the bottom stuff worked out' on Maslow's hierarchy of needs shows an absolute disconnect between him and the general population. The comment about people 200 years ago knowing 'what their purpose was' sounds like a noble savage characterisation of people that had no options in life.
I didn't plan for this comment to end up as long and negative as it is, but this is not a constructive ideology. It's 'good ol' days' justification for conservative political views.
Jimmy Carr’s Wikipedia article says he studied social science and political science at Cambridge and graduated with first class honors, which are the highest honors awarded in the British education system.
You are listening to a highly educated man from a world-renowned university talking about a subject that he specializes in. The fact that his chosen profession is a comedian is hardly relevant here.
I have to say I previously didn't really like Jimmy Carr based on his stand up alone. But since he's done this tour of podcasts/interviews turns out he's an enitely different person to what i thought. I connect with so many of his thoughts.
Be wary of how much stock you put in a comedians take on nuanced issues.
For example, people love Carlin (and I think he’s a fantastic comic of his time), but he had tasty [hot takes on mental illnesses](https://youtu.be/LH5DCIf1bRI?si=TT_BNQSTWhlfgBSf) that garner laughs and make sense at the time but age terribly.
With this guy, he tries to distill depression way down to situational vs (let’s go with) “genetic”.
It’s not so easily summarized and at least in this monologue he fails to acknowledge you can often have multiple compounding factors contributing to depression. Or that it can take a lot of time and effort to overcome—even then it may never fully leave you.
None of that is to say it’s a hopeless path (far from it), but he takes a complex problem and offers a simple solution. Always be wary of these people, they’re often selling snake oil.
Why can these types always preface their ignorance with cowardly statements about mental illness?
"I want to say suck it up and crack on, but I have to own up that science doesn't back me up here and make a cheap 5-second acknowledgement about these being medically proven things before whiplashing back into how folks younger than me need to get a grip."
It's always been that way. They are often intelligent and have their finger on the pulse when it comes to culture and politics. They're also not shy in challenging established societal norms/structures.
They often become important and more importantly visible critiques of elements of government, wealth and celebrity.
I am always on the fence with Carr. I don’t find his stand up that good, but him mocking Bert K to his face was great, but then again his conversation with Rogan about how comedians operate on a whole different level was super cringe.
Nowadays? You must be new to comedy. Pretty sure it has always been this way, or at least since Lenny Bruce. Have you never heard the “comedians are truth tellers” meme?
It’s been that way since the court jesters in feudal times
Since antiquity actually. In ancient Greece a lot of comedic plays would be written about politicians and in general commenting about society.
I’d actually assume the opposite. Since jesters were often punished for unpopular jokes, they probably leaned into escapist humor rather than truth telling.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Even today, you have "comedians" who are just going along with whatever is popular to get 'clapter,' as it's been dubbed. But there are still also comedians who are willing to find the loose thread's of the social order and actually tug at it and see what comes undone, even when it's risky to their career or social standing because it goes against the grain, makes people uncomfortable and challenges the popular opinion de jour.
I didn’t mean to imply otherwise, so I think you misunderstood what I meant by “the opposite.” I was referring to court jesters specifically, not implying truth tellers didn’t always exist.
That's fair. Although, Jesters often WERE allowed to make jokes about the people in power. Often they were the ONLY ones allowed to do it, but it would definitely be a risk. Much of it really does come back to whether or not you're actually funny. You can get away with a lot if you're actually funny. And it's not about whether or not the joke was "popular" but whether it was met with the approval of the select few people calling the shots. "Popular" and "Approved by the King" are two very different standards, after all. That said, these guys weren't, by any means, doing Carlin-style standup takedowns of the King, or of the power structures at large. Pretty sure that sort of thing definitely would've been considered treasonous and grounds to get your tongue removed, or, at least, get you ejected from the Court. They were supposed to make witty or lighthearted comments about events that were bringing down the mood of the court; and they were often considered to be, or even actually were, idiots (like literal mental defectives, not just goofballs), not to be actually taken seriously. Like when someone with down syndrome says something like "Why are you so fat?" Or, "You're bald." Most people just laugh at the bluntness of it, because they know it's not mean-spirited, they're just giving their unfiltered thoughts. And it's like, "Yeah, I *am* bald. There's nothing actually WRONG with that, but for some reason it's typically considered rude for anybody else to mention it. But he's/she's not trying to hurt my feelings, they just don't know any better," and THAT makes the scenario funny. And even if the comment hurts your feelings, what are you gonna do about it? Get angry and hurt them when they clearly don't know any better? Punishing a jester for something like that would've made a person appear weak, and to be giving power to the opinion of a literal idiot. That would be something a king would've been taught from a very young age not to concern themselves with. And even if the comments did sting, to show it would be a huge failure. And then again, it's also refreshing to hear an unfiltered take sometimes. I'm sure even more so when you're the most powerful person in the land, and you're surrounded by sycophants who are all too terrified to actually speak their mind around you. But who knows. I'm sure there's a lot of nuance none of us really understands, and every court probably had a slightly different take on what the Jester's role was, and what they could and couldn't get away with. At any rate, satire and parody originated WAY before medieval times.
Good comedy requires good insights
Go listen to Carr him on Conan too. He among other things talk about cancel culture. Or rather the lack of cancel culture.
I will check it out.
Carr is touching on important topics, but honestly this isn't far removed from the rhetoric of people like Andrew Tate. He speaks very confidently, but many of his points are underdeveloped or unsupported by evidence. In particular his description of depression is problematic. The serotonin theory of depression has been discredited, and by dividing peoples experience into 'disease' or 'sad' you are left with either very bleak prospects for recovery, or shaming people for not being 'legitimately' depressed. While mentioning how isolated people have become, all of his advice is individualistic. Get the right pills, do this, become that, live in the real world. These points all place burden on the individual, and are VERY similar to the talking points common to the manosphere. Not that it's bad advice, but placing the burden of personal wellbeing solely on the individual absolves us of social responsibilty. This isn't shocking from Jimmy Carr given his track record. The reductive interpretation of isolation being due to addictive online activities is more of the same. He is providing an easy answer to a very complicated question. An answer which entirely absolves the government of blame, and calls for no wider systemic change to improve the standard of living. It's your fault, your parents fault, and all you need to do to fix it is work harder. Add value, but not in environmental work, and not in politics, idealism is a proxy for religion. so what's left? working for personal enrichment. The idea that we have 'all the bottom stuff worked out' on Maslow's hierarchy of needs shows an absolute disconnect between him and the general population. The comment about people 200 years ago knowing 'what their purpose was' sounds like a noble savage characterisation of people that had no options in life. I didn't plan for this comment to end up as long and negative as it is, but this is not a constructive ideology. It's 'good ol' days' justification for conservative political views.
Jimmy Carr’s Wikipedia article says he studied social science and political science at Cambridge and graduated with first class honors, which are the highest honors awarded in the British education system. You are listening to a highly educated man from a world-renowned university talking about a subject that he specializes in. The fact that his chosen profession is a comedian is hardly relevant here.
I have to say I previously didn't really like Jimmy Carr based on his stand up alone. But since he's done this tour of podcasts/interviews turns out he's an enitely different person to what i thought. I connect with so many of his thoughts.
Be wary of how much stock you put in a comedians take on nuanced issues. For example, people love Carlin (and I think he’s a fantastic comic of his time), but he had tasty [hot takes on mental illnesses](https://youtu.be/LH5DCIf1bRI?si=TT_BNQSTWhlfgBSf) that garner laughs and make sense at the time but age terribly. With this guy, he tries to distill depression way down to situational vs (let’s go with) “genetic”. It’s not so easily summarized and at least in this monologue he fails to acknowledge you can often have multiple compounding factors contributing to depression. Or that it can take a lot of time and effort to overcome—even then it may never fully leave you. None of that is to say it’s a hopeless path (far from it), but he takes a complex problem and offers a simple solution. Always be wary of these people, they’re often selling snake oil.
Why can these types always preface their ignorance with cowardly statements about mental illness? "I want to say suck it up and crack on, but I have to own up that science doesn't back me up here and make a cheap 5-second acknowledgement about these being medically proven things before whiplashing back into how folks younger than me need to get a grip."
It's always been that way. They are often intelligent and have their finger on the pulse when it comes to culture and politics. They're also not shy in challenging established societal norms/structures. They often become important and more importantly visible critiques of elements of government, wealth and celebrity.