Conservatives don’t know how comedy works. I call it the Yo Mama hypothesis.
When you were a kid, and other kids lied about your mom, you got mad, right? And eventually they’d say - relax, it’s a joke, stop crying. And if you’re reading this then you probably grew to understand the difference between saying something and meaning it.
I don’t think every kid got there.
I think a lot of kids, maybe a whole quarter of humanity, only learned that jokes are insults you have to shut up and take. They’re cruelty you’re not allowed to get mad about. How would those kids act differently? They’d stop crying, mostly, when people told rude lies about their mothers. They’d snap back at other kids, telling rude lies about their mothers. From those events you’d figure, great! They get it. It’s not real. Except… they only look right from the outside. On the inside, they’re gathering a list of excuses for vicious behavior.
These people know what jokes look like. They’re clever enough to build a punchline. They kinda get how you tell jokes. But they have no idea why you tell jokes.
People defending Dave Chappelle insisted “he’s a comedian!” like that absolved all his opinions. I’ve walked those people through how jokes require setup that reflects sincere beliefs. (Like how “eat the rich” is a joke about classism and cannibalism, but it’s only joking about the cannibalism.) I’ve cited the many times Dave repeated certain claims far from any stage. But these folks never acknowledge that being a TERF is not part of the act. That’s not how it works, in their worldview.
Being a comedian means he gets to say things you’re Not Supposed To Say, even if they’re things you absofuckinglutely believe. That’s all they thought Jon Stewart was doing. That’s why they thought Stephen Colbert was on their side.
The same people routinely parroted “you can joke about anything,” which is equally revealing. They’d heard it because they insisted “you can’t joke about [blank]!” even for the most benign, supportive, and inoffensive gags. And also for dead-baby jokes and antitheism. Point is: these types don’t care about severity, because they don’t care about meaning. They believe in blasphemy. They think condemnation, criticism, or even just speaking less-than-reverently about a subject is profaning something sacred, and chances are good they’ll hit kids for doing it.
We told them every subject is fair game for fair jokes. They’d stop yelling, mostly. And from that event we’d figure, great, they get it. But on the inside, they still believe the issue is what a joke is about. They still think joking is an attack under agreed-upon rules of engagement. So of course funny black man shit on trans people. They don’t like trans people. It’s hardly a secret. What’s our beef, saying he’s not allowed to spout jokes full of prejudice and hatred? They’re jokes. That’s what they’re for.
Not literal but not a joke, it is a serious phrase of figurative speech. It originates from a french revolutionary "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.” which is most likely a reference to the famous quote by the same author, ‘At length I remembered the last resort of a great princess who, when told that the peasants had no bread, replied: "Then let them eat brioches.’
— Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The rich said let them eat cake, I propose we eat the rich
Conservatives don’t know how comedy works. I call it the Yo Mama hypothesis.
When you were a kid, and other kids lied about your mom, you got mad, right? And eventually they’d say - relax, it’s a joke, stop crying. And if you’re reading this then you probably grew to understand the difference between saying something and meaning it.
I don’t think every kid got there.
I think a lot of kids, maybe a whole quarter of humanity, only learned that jokes are insults you have to shut up and take. They’re cruelty you’re not allowed to get mad about. How would those kids act differently? They’d stop crying, mostly, when people told rude lies about their mothers. They’d snap back at other kids, telling rude lies about their mothers. From those events you’d figure, great! They get it. It’s not real. Except… they only look right from the outside. On the inside, they’re gathering a list of excuses for vicious behavior.
These people know what jokes look like. They’re clever enough to build a punchline. They kinda get how you tell jokes. But they have no idea why you tell jokes.
People defending Dave Chappelle insisted “he’s a comedian!” like that absolved all his opinions. I’ve walked those people through how jokes require setup that reflects sincere beliefs. (Like how “eat the rich” is a joke about classism and cannibalism, but it’s only joking about the cannibalism.) I’ve cited the many times Dave repeated certain claims far from any stage. But these folks never acknowledge that being a TERF is not part of the act. That’s not how it works, in their worldview.
Being a comedian means he gets to say things you’re Not Supposed To Say, even if they’re things you absofuckinglutely believe. That’s all they thought Jon Stewart was doing. That’s why they thought Stephen Colbert was on their side.
The same people routinely parroted “you can joke about anything,” which is equally revealing. They’d heard it because they insisted “you can’t joke about [blank]!” even for the most benign, supportive, and inoffensive gags. And also for dead-baby jokes and antitheism. Point is: these types don’t care about severity, because they don’t care about meaning. They believe in blasphemy. They think condemnation, criticism, or even just speaking less-than-reverently about a subject is profaning something sacred, and chances are good they’ll hit kids for doing it.
We told them every subject is fair game for fair jokes. They’d stop yelling, mostly. And from that event we’d figure, great, they get it. But on the inside, they still believe the issue is what a joke is about. They still think joking is an attack under agreed-upon rules of engagement. So of course funny black man shit on trans people. They don’t like trans people. It’s hardly a secret. What’s our beef, saying he’s not allowed to spout jokes full of prejudice and hatred? They’re jokes. That’s what they’re for.
I don’t think it’s joking about cannibalism so much as it’s a metaphor or figurative speech.
Although I don’t want some weird prion disease, if rich people were the only remaining food source, I’d eat them.
It’s why I never say “eat the rich”, instead say: “compost the rich”. That way everyone knows I am serious about both parts of the ‘joke’.
Composting doesn’t eliminate prion risks, though. IMHO if we ever have that kind of power, they should be forced to see the world they delayed.
Suffice it to say, it’s insincere about the cannibalism. The animosity toward billionaires is completely serious.
Not literal but not a joke, it is a serious phrase of figurative speech. It originates from a french revolutionary "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.” which is most likely a reference to the famous quote by the same author, ‘At length I remembered the last resort of a great princess who, when told that the peasants had no bread, replied: "Then let them eat brioches.’ — Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The rich said let them eat cake, I propose we eat the rich
That’s what your momma is for.