Even if Mr. Minaj were being honest, the types of experiences he describes are much less common than they used to be. That's something to feel good about.
It says a lot about how far we've come that those who want to mine trauma at scale -- for example, the 1619 Project, the "stolen land statement" intoners, or the slavery reparations advocates -- have to go centuries into the past to find sufficiently rich motherloads. Instead of studying history, they're pasturbating.
This meta-analysis of research studies about so-called colorblind versus multicultural "approaches" etc. has NOTHING to do with Coleman Hughes' argument and, quite apart from that, is all disingenuous nonsense. You're going to compare not giving a damn about your employee's background versus making sure he knows we value and appreciate his background as your profound experiment concerning the issue at hand? There's no such thing as serious research that could show whether or not it's fair, productive or constitutional to be practicing reverse discrimination ad infinitum, which is the actual issue. These guys set out to censor Hughes and accomplished their goal. Why? If they don't, they run the risk of getting shunned, fired etc. The psychologist is out of a job if we stop discriminating. He's providing the cover for this travesty.
It's true that's a rule. That's definitely not The Moth's only rule!
But it is the crucial rule. (the other crucial rule is no notes on stage)
But... if you go to a Moth performance these days you'll see lots more rules (many of recent vintage) and I bet that you can guess most of the rules ahead of time!
Making people feel uncomfortable by being creepy has replaced making people laugh. The show 'The Office' best illustrates the phenomena. Comedy is hard. Being creepy is much easier. Even the late night guys who used to be funny now bleat woke dogma and the audience eats it up- but it's not comedy.
I'm a long time comedy guy and have done some stand up. Comedy is a dangerous business and innocuous off the cuff comments can turn disastrous. Most comedy is fantasy of some sort based in truth with a twist that makes it funny. Where this guy stepped over the line is that the story could be traced back the young lady. So she and her family are branded as racists for the event that didn't happen. Have thousands of young been jilted at the door by a girl? Yes, and I don't think it's very funny anyway. She and her family should sue this guy.
Phyllis Diller, Joan Rivers and Rodney Dangerfield had writers that made up ALL of it. So what? Their spouses laughed all the way to the bank. It's ok to make it up as long as it doesn't injure the person or reputation of the subject. Sue him.
Yes, this is just capitalism. He found a product that people wanted to buy. Entertainers do this and it is a hard way to make a living. But, if you brand it as the truth, and then put it out there with the name of the person, then you have crossed a line and are responsible/negligent. Frankly, I don't see what this has to do with comedy..........this is spoken word/autobiography. Up to the audience to decide if it was worth the money they paid for it (I am not his audience). Maybe the audience will become more mature at consuming this type of material? Or maybe they just want to feel better about their privilege?
- Bigotry these days is mostly boring, subtle, and not suited for stories on stage or screen. Is adaption/addition/subtraction of reality ok to highlight a larger truth? If it's in the context of comedy, does that change the equation? Would it negatively impact the value of the show if the performer gave a disclaimer? See the quote in The New Yorker article from Marc Maron.
- Minhaj seems to have a goal of highlighting a larger truth. What if the small bits of banal reality don't add up to the larger truth? How close does it need to be? The gap should be investigated. He doesn't seem to follow where reality points, instead he seems to interpret reality with the larger truth assumed. See confirmation bias - but this is a little different, more like confirmation bias construction.
- I wonder if he would agree that overt and soft bigots, from individuals to governments, make up their own larger truth to validate their morally dubious actions. Is it acceptable to do the same to combat a a false larger truth? This is starting to sound like a definition of wartime propaganda. If we zoom out, where does that leave us? With half truths and narratives that don't match our own lives, but we now have a more distorted lens to interpret life through. I find that when people's minds have calmed, the banal reality slaps down the exaggerated reaction. But that takes time and a resistance to stoke the fire.
- The phrase "emotionally true" is an oxymoron and should be replaced. I understand the concept the phrase is trying to describe, but using the word "true" is a grave misnomer. It grants emotions/anecdotes/bias the same validity as empirical truth. It's not truth, it's reality distorted through our imperfect feelings.
This revelation tarnishes my trust in Minhaj and other comedians that blur the line of comedy and personal stories. I'll probably watch his next special but I'll listen for jokes, not truth. Which makes sense for a comedy special, doy.
The sad reality is that Leftists will embrace anyone who tells them things they want to hear, no matter how unlikely those lies are. They embraced Jussie Smollet, despite the fact that anyone with an ounce of sense instantly saw the gaping holes in his story.
Stephen Colbert invented the perfect word to describe Leftists' relationship with convenient lies: "truthy." As long as something is "truthy"--that is, it serves the Leftist narrative for it to be true--Leftists don't consider it a lie.
The truth is that life feels less authentic, less meaningful, without a little suffering. So, when people have it too good, they seek out stories of suffering so that they can vicariously experience the full range of the human experience. There is nothing wrong with this impulse when the consumer knows its a fantasy, but people respond with real life action when they think they have just learned about real life events. Disgraceful.
The biggest problem with all this trauma porn is that it's a cold slap in the face to the literally millions of people worldwide who suffer genuine and truly traumatic violence, exploitation, and oppression every day. We've never even heard of most of them, and we never will, because they are too poor, too powerless, or too dead to tell us their stories.
Follow the money...if the money is available, there are those who will do anything to get their "share"...lying about their own life story is only the beginning of things people are willing to lie about...and...the legacy media willingly feeds into the narrative in a never ending search for content that pays the bills in a 24/7/365 news cycle...follow the money...g.
And speaking of money, Minhaj’s never-prom-date should sue him for every dollar he has on the basis of slander, reckless endangerment, and gross negligence. In the internet age, only the stupidest and most careless person would fail to realize that a famous person publicly accusing a real person — by name — of racism will expose them to great harm (financial and physical). Hope a good lawyer has already been in touch with her!
Guys like Minhaj are given a spotlight and beloved by the left only as long as they're useful against the right - ask Aziz Ansari how that works out long-term. What is given will be taken.
Meanwhile guys like Saagar Enjeti over at Breaking Points, Vivek Ramsworthy, and especially Akaash Singh are making a strong case for republican capture of the Indian American masculine culture. They will be here in 20 years because they've built their own platforms. I'll throw Nickki Haley in there too, I hate her neocon politics but her clashing at the debate really jumped her up a peg or five. Patrick Bet-David is Iranian but he's working in the same model.
I really like Akaash on Flagrant 2- he's everything Minhaj is not. He's most comfortable holding court on a multiracial podcast where the jokes pull no punches and Alex Jones is a welcome guest. Dude is damn proud to be Indian and needs absolutely no help or pity in the cultural arena, and he's a killer on standup. The Times didn't know what to make of him but he'd be a good FP or Honestly interview.
Even if Mr. Minaj were being honest, the types of experiences he describes are much less common than they used to be. That's something to feel good about.
It says a lot about how far we've come that those who want to mine trauma at scale -- for example, the 1619 Project, the "stolen land statement" intoners, or the slavery reparations advocates -- have to go centuries into the past to find sufficiently rich motherloads. Instead of studying history, they're pasturbating.
“New Yorker tote bag class”...can’t wait to steal that.
This meta-analysis of research studies about so-called colorblind versus multicultural "approaches" etc. has NOTHING to do with Coleman Hughes' argument and, quite apart from that, is all disingenuous nonsense. You're going to compare not giving a damn about your employee's background versus making sure he knows we value and appreciate his background as your profound experiment concerning the issue at hand? There's no such thing as serious research that could show whether or not it's fair, productive or constitutional to be practicing reverse discrimination ad infinitum, which is the actual issue. These guys set out to censor Hughes and accomplished their goal. Why? If they don't, they run the risk of getting shunned, fired etc. The psychologist is out of a job if we stop discriminating. He's providing the cover for this travesty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrccTMwoLv8 too funny. and a person of "color" from Pakistan
It's true that's a rule. That's definitely not The Moth's only rule!
But it is the crucial rule. (the other crucial rule is no notes on stage)
But... if you go to a Moth performance these days you'll see lots more rules (many of recent vintage) and I bet that you can guess most of the rules ahead of time!
Making people feel uncomfortable by being creepy has replaced making people laugh. The show 'The Office' best illustrates the phenomena. Comedy is hard. Being creepy is much easier. Even the late night guys who used to be funny now bleat woke dogma and the audience eats it up- but it's not comedy.
I'm a long time comedy guy and have done some stand up. Comedy is a dangerous business and innocuous off the cuff comments can turn disastrous. Most comedy is fantasy of some sort based in truth with a twist that makes it funny. Where this guy stepped over the line is that the story could be traced back the young lady. So she and her family are branded as racists for the event that didn't happen. Have thousands of young been jilted at the door by a girl? Yes, and I don't think it's very funny anyway. She and her family should sue this guy.
Phyllis Diller, Joan Rivers and Rodney Dangerfield had writers that made up ALL of it. So what? Their spouses laughed all the way to the bank. It's ok to make it up as long as it doesn't injure the person or reputation of the subject. Sue him.
Yes, this is just capitalism. He found a product that people wanted to buy. Entertainers do this and it is a hard way to make a living. But, if you brand it as the truth, and then put it out there with the name of the person, then you have crossed a line and are responsible/negligent. Frankly, I don't see what this has to do with comedy..........this is spoken word/autobiography. Up to the audience to decide if it was worth the money they paid for it (I am not his audience). Maybe the audience will become more mature at consuming this type of material? Or maybe they just want to feel better about their privilege?
So why isn't this guy cancelled like many other entertainers are?
I’m waiting for Oprah to confront the greatest liar of our times, Joe Biden. I know I’m dreaming.
My takeaways:
- Bigotry these days is mostly boring, subtle, and not suited for stories on stage or screen. Is adaption/addition/subtraction of reality ok to highlight a larger truth? If it's in the context of comedy, does that change the equation? Would it negatively impact the value of the show if the performer gave a disclaimer? See the quote in The New Yorker article from Marc Maron.
- Minhaj seems to have a goal of highlighting a larger truth. What if the small bits of banal reality don't add up to the larger truth? How close does it need to be? The gap should be investigated. He doesn't seem to follow where reality points, instead he seems to interpret reality with the larger truth assumed. See confirmation bias - but this is a little different, more like confirmation bias construction.
- I wonder if he would agree that overt and soft bigots, from individuals to governments, make up their own larger truth to validate their morally dubious actions. Is it acceptable to do the same to combat a a false larger truth? This is starting to sound like a definition of wartime propaganda. If we zoom out, where does that leave us? With half truths and narratives that don't match our own lives, but we now have a more distorted lens to interpret life through. I find that when people's minds have calmed, the banal reality slaps down the exaggerated reaction. But that takes time and a resistance to stoke the fire.
- The phrase "emotionally true" is an oxymoron and should be replaced. I understand the concept the phrase is trying to describe, but using the word "true" is a grave misnomer. It grants emotions/anecdotes/bias the same validity as empirical truth. It's not truth, it's reality distorted through our imperfect feelings.
This revelation tarnishes my trust in Minhaj and other comedians that blur the line of comedy and personal stories. I'll probably watch his next special but I'll listen for jokes, not truth. Which makes sense for a comedy special, doy.
Why I read The Freetimes ,the MSM never pics up stories like Hasan Minhaj
The sad reality is that Leftists will embrace anyone who tells them things they want to hear, no matter how unlikely those lies are. They embraced Jussie Smollet, despite the fact that anyone with an ounce of sense instantly saw the gaping holes in his story.
Stephen Colbert invented the perfect word to describe Leftists' relationship with convenient lies: "truthy." As long as something is "truthy"--that is, it serves the Leftist narrative for it to be true--Leftists don't consider it a lie.
The truth is that life feels less authentic, less meaningful, without a little suffering. So, when people have it too good, they seek out stories of suffering so that they can vicariously experience the full range of the human experience. There is nothing wrong with this impulse when the consumer knows its a fantasy, but people respond with real life action when they think they have just learned about real life events. Disgraceful.
The biggest problem with all this trauma porn is that it's a cold slap in the face to the literally millions of people worldwide who suffer genuine and truly traumatic violence, exploitation, and oppression every day. We've never even heard of most of them, and we never will, because they are too poor, too powerless, or too dead to tell us their stories.
They are mostly not American and thus don’t advance the narrative that America is uniquely oppressive
Follow the money...if the money is available, there are those who will do anything to get their "share"...lying about their own life story is only the beginning of things people are willing to lie about...and...the legacy media willingly feeds into the narrative in a never ending search for content that pays the bills in a 24/7/365 news cycle...follow the money...g.
And speaking of money, Minhaj’s never-prom-date should sue him for every dollar he has on the basis of slander, reckless endangerment, and gross negligence. In the internet age, only the stupidest and most careless person would fail to realize that a famous person publicly accusing a real person — by name — of racism will expose them to great harm (financial and physical). Hope a good lawyer has already been in touch with her!
Guys like Minhaj are given a spotlight and beloved by the left only as long as they're useful against the right - ask Aziz Ansari how that works out long-term. What is given will be taken.
Meanwhile guys like Saagar Enjeti over at Breaking Points, Vivek Ramsworthy, and especially Akaash Singh are making a strong case for republican capture of the Indian American masculine culture. They will be here in 20 years because they've built their own platforms. I'll throw Nickki Haley in there too, I hate her neocon politics but her clashing at the debate really jumped her up a peg or five. Patrick Bet-David is Iranian but he's working in the same model.
I really like Akaash on Flagrant 2- he's everything Minhaj is not. He's most comfortable holding court on a multiracial podcast where the jokes pull no punches and Alex Jones is a welcome guest. Dude is damn proud to be Indian and needs absolutely no help or pity in the cultural arena, and he's a killer on standup. The Times didn't know what to make of him but he'd be a good FP or Honestly interview.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/arts/television/akaash-singh-apu-the-simpsons.html