Small town dude moves to big city.
V interesting! Though I must say, exceedingly poor typography on that cover. Draws the eye to the wrong half of "transit", at least in this context. Lord knows punchy titles are in short supply, but there are four levels to that title (it girl, trans girl, trans it girl, transit girl) and only two of them are used, and it's confusing.
Make your very own Benedict Cumberbatch at home! Here's how:
(Step 1) Craft a life-size likeness of Michael C. Hall from soft butter
(Step 2) Leave said likeness in the sun for an hour
(Step 3) Add the spark of sentient life to the likeness.
Love to see things like this on the HP.
One of the great things, perhaps THE great thing, about endurance training (running miles in the 2 digits, circuit lifting) is that you can simulate the experience of eating food while stoned without the bother of getting stoned. You can taste peanuts in 3D after a good run, I swear to God
We have to assume that the term "NWO Hairline" refers to the traditional haircut of one Hulk Hogan. The common variant is "skullet"
@leonstj tl;dr super short version is that "laughing to keep from crying" only makes sense insofar as you would actually cry about whatever you're laughing about, and honestly? Most people (or dudes, at least) don't cry about sexual violence. They don't need a mechanism to cope with the reality of it because they don't live with the reality of it. They laugh about it because they don't have to think about it if they don't want to. And who wants to?
@leonstj Fair points. I guess what I was trying to get at is sort of a notion of comedy as a non-neutral medium. W/r/t patriarchy, part of it is hoary old post-structuralism. It's essentially the same critique that's used against traditional classroom structures - you've got the teacher at the front of the class, standing and actively speaking, and the students seated and passively receiving. The idea is that this arrangement of people is inherently authoritarian and deterrent to criticism (hence why so many gender / critical studies courses arrange their classrooms in a circle). Not a great arrangement for individual incitement.
I guess I'm essentially arguing from Brecht here, and his thesis that theater creates a remove rendering it inherently toothless as critique and actively reinforcing of our distance from social problems. Brecht's notion was that you had to break from the "rules" of your medium and directly antagonize your audience, and make explicit their personal complicity in whatever injustice is portrayed.
Kira Garcia's descriptions of the Truscott show seem to indicate that it's going for that (the nudity, etc), but I have a hard time reconciling radical theater that's not openly didactic about how the medium itself perpetuates ignorance. I could be way off-base. But my feeling is that with stand-up at least if you give people radical humor they'll take the latter and leave the former where they found it. Consider that Dave Chappelle left his own show because he realized white people weren't actually considering the points he was trying to make (points that weren't even subtle). It was just comedy to them, and he became disgusted with it.
I guess the disconnect here is that I think comedy as a general cultural practice is in need of dissection, not just its openly insensitive aspects.
No one's like, "He's no fun, I don't wanna have a beer with him! What an angry grumpy misogynist!"
Bill Hicks and Doug Stanhope are a blight upon the earth.
The thing about comedy is that it's meant to be a reflection-free zone, sort of this outlet for (and only for) public celebration of the individual's skewed perspective. An art form. But at some point, via Carlin or Bruce or perhaps even before them, comedians became "truth tellers", cutting through cultural pretense and political programming and producing tautologies that reflect not just upon the speaker but on reality as a whole. And that's terrible, because comedy isn't an inherently critical platform. Popular comedy doesn't push, it supports.
I guess an argument could be made that you can dismantle the master's house with the master's tools, but beyond the fact that countercultural tradition from which comedy grows is as reactionary as the monoculture it fought against, it seems looks like stand-up as a practice is an exceptionally poor tool of radicalism. Its sacrosanct nature as speech is stifling in itself, and many constitutional notions of what's funny and what comedy is supposed to accomplish are inherently patriarchal (an audience produces an overly sensitive environment as though it was their problem).
Anyway, stand-up comedy is fun, but so are most things that reinforce toxic culture. I just don't see the point in creating your own hermetic silo of anti-patriarchal comedy when it can only stand alongside pro-patriarchal comedy at a respectful distance. Radical art that fails to challenge the first principles of its culture is not radical at all. We have no reason to respect misogynists, or acquiesce to their claims about their right to do or say anything.
From a horse fetishist on Broadway to the most famous of NAMBLA members, Dan Radcliffe is the most transgressive actor around.
James Franco is staring daggers across the room at him rn