Heavy Sarcasm

Behold! …the brilliant “wit” of comedian Rush Limbaugh. Good grief, what a monumental, pilonidal cyst-afflicted asshole.

As has been contended here previously on many occasions, conservative ideologues are utterly incapable of being funny. Who knows why? Many curious theories abound. Whatever the cause of this rather unfortunate characteristic, I dare anyone to effectively disabuse me of this admittedly unscientific assertion.

p.s. Just a note to regular readers, my apologies for the extended absence. I’ve been really busy… And am still so. I’ll try to make the posts less infrequent, but a full return to “regular programming” isn’t likely for a while.

Advertisements

24 Comments

Filed under Humour, Wingnuts

24 responses to “Heavy Sarcasm

  1. Guzzeuntite

    Actually, you have that wrong, RT. It’s “As has been contended here previously on many occasions, leftist ideologues are utterly incapable of being funny.”

    And not only is it contended, it’s a proven fact.

    Viz., Janeane Garofalo.

  2. I was actually going to add something to the effect that extreme radicals of both sides are equally unfunny, but I thought that might muddy the assertion.

    However, thanks for proving my point. Simply flipping something on its head utilizing substitution isn’t especially funny.

  3. Ti-Guy

    Right wingers aren’t funny because their “humour” quite often depends on diminishing powerless people or people without influence. There’s always an element in it that is just too vulgar to make most decent people laugh.

    It’s like teasing the fat or homely kids. Sure, we’ve all done it. But we eventually grow out of it. Right wingers never do.

  4. I know we’ve flogged this horse to death with little to show for it before, but the facts speak for themselves.

    In this respect, I enter into evidence:

    Dennis Miller (pre 9-11 vs. post 9-11).

    He used to be an irreverent, foul-mouthed iconoclast on HBO and now he’s just a smarmy douchebag sucking up to Bill O’Reilly on Fox News.

  5. Knock knock

    Rob H.: “Who’s there?”

    Ti-Guy: “Ti-Guy!”

    Rob H.: “Your continued and unabated cynical whining about half of your fellow Canadian citizens and your debasement of everything that is Alberta or Saskatchewan has grown tiresome, so you can’t come in.”

    HAHAHAHAHAH….

    See.
    Right wing.
    Hilllllllllaaaaarious.

    *badumpa*

  6. Go ahead.

    I dare you not to laugh.

  7. Ti-Guy

    Dennis Miller? Is he still on somewhere?

  8. ..oh, and Ti-Guy – I’m just ripping on you.. you know your my blogs favorite reader!!

  9. Ti-Guy

    Good Lord, Rob. Don’t tell me you’re not even acquainted with a comedic formula as simple as the “knock knock” joke.

    That’s not even lacking in humour. That’s anti-humour.

  10. I dunno, that was kind of an amusing take on the old knock-knock joke.

  11. Dennis Miller? Is he still on somewhere?

    I believe he opens for David Duke nowadays.

  12. He has a radio program, I believe. Thankfully, his listeners will be spared his gruesome on-camera mugging. But I cannot imagine what it must be like listening to his pseudo-savvy cultural references for 2-3 hrs. a day or whatever it is… Quite an awful experience, I’d think.

  13. Hmm. My take on Rob’s “joke” is that he knew it was unfunny and offered it satirically as an archly implicit concession to Ti-Guy’s argument.

    As proof, I would point out that it has all the qualities of a parodic treatment of right-wing “humour”, including the bathetic and immediate descent into maladroit hyper-literalism (“Your continued and unabated cynical whining…”, etc.), the desperate interpolation of comic effects which the “joke” fails to produce on its own (“HAHAHAHAHAH….Hilllllllllaaaaarious…*badumpa*”), and the resort to a preposterous but compensatory machismo intended to mask the speaker’s self-loathing born of his inner certainty that his “joke” has merely exposed its teller to richly-merited public scorn (“Go ahead. I dare you not to laugh”).

    Thus, if we’re willing to give Rob the benefit of the doubt, we’ll see that his “joke” was actually quite brilliant.

  14. SF — I will admit that it didn’t make me laugh, but I set the bar lower for “conservatives”… Being a good liberal, I give inordinate points for effort. 😉

    I do however think it’s pretty funny that you felt compelled to analyze its non-comical dynamic. Now that made me laugh.

  15. Ti-Guy

    I believe he opens for David Duke nowadays.

    That would only elevate him in my esteem.

    What’s always irritated me about Miller is how much of a poseur he is; how much he feigns erudition by throwing in references you’re pretty sure he only looked up an hour before in the Information, Please Almanac. Sure, it worked for SNL’s Weekend Update but who knew that was the real Dennis Miller?

  16. He must be insufferable in person, I’d bet.

    I’m almost embarrassed now to admit that I did used to find his “rants” pretty funny many years ago, but even then they strained excessively to be clever and hip.

    Bottom line: The guy is an obnoxious, pompous jerk.

    But let’s not make this thread all about Dennis Miller. Surely there’s a plethora of conservative comedians out there…

    And P.J. O’Rourke doesn’t count. (Also not terribly funny these days.)

  17. Now that made me laugh.

    Excellent. Consider it just one lowly ha’p’ny rendered in woefully inadequate re-payment of the king’s ransom’s worth of laughter I’ve borrowed from your blog (especially from “Biff” and his microbial cognates) these two years past.

    Upon the balance owing, I must regretfully default, as—being resident in a Liberal riding—I’ve no hope of securing the necessary bail-out funds. I do hope you’ll be magnanimous about this unfortunate situation…

  18. SF — Similarly residing in a Liberal PFZ (Pork-Free Zone), I can relate.

    We have however been promised a highway overpass should a Conservative MP be elected. Imagine my excited anticipation at the prospect of my tax dollars subsidizing a faster commute for people who can actually afford cars! Woo-hoo!

  19. “As has been contended here previously on many occasions, leftist ideologues are utterly incapable of being funny.”

    i’m convinced.

    KEvron

  20. i’ve noticed that wingnuts tend to supplement their deficit of wit with extraneous punctuation. parallels with rob’s overcooked effort; they have to cue their audience.

    KEvron

  21. did i really use “extraneous”?! i’m a idiot.

    KEvron

  22. Ti-Guy

    Give Rob a break. It’s Friday in Alberta. He’s been drinking since noon.

  23. jkg

    For a brief moment, I thought Sylvester the Cat was auctioneering.

    Anyway, I believe that it is very difficult for conservatives to be comedic, but this stems from a larger perspective. Satire and comedy have historically been used to challenge and ridicule the establishment and socially prescribed norms. I think back to the Moliere’s (sp) Bourgeois Gentilhomme and just how poignant and funny his satire was on the social classes of France at the time. In that time, playwrights were able to show the mirror to the ruling class of the society, and at the same time, some of them were gainfully employed and compensated by members of the upper class. I am not denying that there was probably some control during that period, but it seemed pretty benign relative to what we see today. I think it is rooted in the fact that since wealth was largely divided amongst individuals and fiefdoms, the degree of monopolization on speech could never materialize into an overriding and homogenous force. These satirists could always find a wealthy sponsor who would be entertained. On the other hand, it could be that these satirists were just simply good on currying favour of those they ridicule, but that explanation alone would not account for why people like Moliere was able to have their plays performed in front of the King or Queen.

    Today, the corporate society allows for greater expansion and connectivity between sources that would employ these satirists and comedians. In other words, as SF noted, there is a monopolization of speech, but with one added element: Being of corporate nature, their filtering and regulation of speech can never be associated with one individual as most motivations in the corporate media are obviously profit driven. Contrary to the views of a born-again free market fundamentalist, the media industry is comprised of a very small group of corporate interests who will still indulge in the irreverent and iconoclastic comedy simply because it can be monetized and profitable. But it is clear that they do not want any of that comedy to become culturally embedded such that it would hurt their well hierarchically structured interests.

    So how does one deal with that? Quite simply, use the original intent of comedy, which is a iconoclastic vehicle related to liberal thought, and invert it to delegitimize and depict those “left-wing” satirists as being a part of the establishment. This then exonerates conservative comedians’ connection with their corporate support which is more subtle yet more powerful then what is afforded to other satirists like Jon Stewart or George Carlin. That may seem unbelievable, but when you have MSNBC and Fox News both marginalizing Jon, it does speak to how such speech can threaten the corporate establishment (George Carlin only was feature once or twice on MSNBC). I have a sneaking suspicion though that Viacom enjoys this simply because they benefit financially as well (they do not have a news network) and are willing to concede just enough for The Daily Show to be immensely profitable yet innocuous to their own business interests.

    However, this whole schtick of fighting the “liberal” establishment is tiresome and really chimerical as it is largely not true. This is why Miller is such an emasculated figure because any legitimacy to what he says is completely wiped out from the fact that he is contracted by a very powerful media conglomerate that is not shy in financing outlets that lean a particular way politically. This a worlds’ different than being employed by Comedy Central whose only purpose is to make people laugh regardless of ideological slant. Further, other than pointing out absurdities of the outliers of a political movement, what other ‘rebellious’ material could he or his other contemporaries produce? In contrast, George Carlin was an equal oppourtunity offender, which made him extremely popular as he could never be pinned down as a mouth piece for any movement other than being vehemently anti-corporate (yet he railed on overactive environmentalists a lot). He still benefitted monetarily, but his comedy was genuine and not contrived as some sort of feign attempt at being a counter-reactionary to what comedy has always been: Anti-establishment. And since conservatives, as far as I can gather, are great defenders of cultural and social establishments (though in recent history, their rampant anti-intellectualism would suggest otherwise), so when a “conservative” comedian comes along, it is hard to take them seriously, unless by some chance they occupy a certain conservatism that can inform and refine the establishments in a meaningful way rather than prefacing everything with “liberal,” and quixotically attacking it, which is nothing more than a debased copout of satirical thought on par with cheap jokes and toilet humour. I am sure there are comedians of such stripe, but they are most likely a minority.

  24. jkg

    oh crap, I forgot to end the bold tag, sorry RT. Can you edit comments?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s