IdleRich
IdleRich
The article says that things aren't funny cos there are accepted joke formats (ie it's cliched), he says the jokes have to pass vetting tests to avoid lawsuits (not if they're not woke but if they insult powerful people or companies and can't be backed up), he says there is no conflict cos of "chuminess", he says that cos we live in a democracy there is no real enemy to satirise, he says that the satire doesn't challenge power at all as evidenced by the fact that Johnson was once a panellist on HIGNFY and then went on to be PM, he says that you can't have satire until you abandon all hope, he says satire has to come from a position of powerless and so it can't be done by "heritage televsion" and yes he does also mention sensitivity readers whatever they may be.
In other words, he lists hundreds of reasons why satire doesn't work, the most important presumably being the one about how it can't speak truth to power, seeing as that is the one which is chosen to summarise it and which he says several times in different ways. But sure the article is actually about one thing he mentions in passing which could possibly be construed as being about wokeness.
In other words, he lists hundreds of reasons why satire doesn't work, the most important presumably being the one about how it can't speak truth to power, seeing as that is the one which is chosen to summarise it and which he says several times in different ways. But sure the article is actually about one thing he mentions in passing which could possibly be construed as being about wokeness.