[nonrandomstring]

Lately, stand-up comedians have been saying they're out of a job, because the absurdity of reality is escaping parody. Nothing stays funny for long, because soon enough it's true, and then banal.

In a world where all things are absurd, ipso facto nothing is absurd.

An interesting question becomes what remains? What are the solid relations that underpin our humanity?

Having a boss that tells you what to do? No, long since passed the point where I have to tell my boss what to do - it's called being the consultant in a clueless, inverted meritocracy.

People wanting to take your money? No. The insane conceit of a "cash-less society" has already created situations where you cannot physically force someone to take money from you.

I'm honestly struggling to see what is cast in stone. Even death and taxes are looking worried. <shakes fist at clouds>

[bluGill]

> Lately, stand-up comedians have been saying they're out of a job, because the absurdity of reality is escaping parody. Nothing stays funny for long, because soon enough it's true, and then banal.

I've heard them say that as long as I've been alive. I'm sure 3000 years ago traveling bards were saying the same things. There is a lot of comedic value from the statement, so of course any good one will use it from time to time. That doesn't mean it is true.

[asveikau]

Frankly there's parts of life where this resonates more today than any time I've been alive.

I've followed US political news since I was a kid. 2016 and onwards shit started getting really weird. Political satire from 2015 was no longer relevant by 2017ish not due the passage of time, but due to the fact that the events that followed are more ridiculous.

I imagine this has happened before. For example, my mom's generation always says 1968 was a crazy year in politics and culture. I imagine early 60s political satire looked tame by the late 60s. But I don't think political satire from 2008 looked ridiculous in 2014, for example.

[jonathanstrange]

They can just literally quote real-life dialogues instead. Rick & Morty featured a whole court session that really happened.[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bjDkQR57fA

[asddubs]

this is a fan-made animation, it wasn't on the show (the voices are of justin roiland though)

[sethammons]

Wow, that is batshit crazy.

[creshal]

Germany's highest form of comedy is political cabaret, i.e. someone quotes a politician verbatim and the audience, briefly, imagines they were actually serious. It's the only form of entertainment that keeps getting funnier every year.

[mark38848]

There is Tatortreiniger and Stromberg, both of which are funnier.

[mbg721]

I'm not sure if it's related to or orthogonal to everything actually being absurd, but there has been a decades-long trend of America/the West taking longstanding elements of culture less and less seriously, just as a matter of fashion. That removes a lot of the low-hanging fruit for comedians.

Decades ago, acts like Monty Python or Allan Sherman were subversive; now they might still be kind of funny, but certainly not shocking. When you have generations that grew up on self-conscious irony, where the way to be cool was not to be seen caring about anything, it's harder to make comedy stick.

Politicians and religious figures may not be any more or less corrupt and out-of-touch than they always were, but now they can gain enough support to keep their jobs without anyone actually taking them seriously, and that's where the self-parody comes in.

I wouldn't say comedy is failing because the source material is too ridiculous, I would say it's failing because the audience is a tough crowd.

[germinalphrase]

“I wouldn't say comedy is failing because the source material is too ridiculous, I would say it's failing because the audience is a tough crowd”

We are certainly a more ‘educated’ crowd living completely awash in content.

[oneoff786]

It’s just another wave of some people getting older and decrying all change as bad. Comedy is thriving. The world is fine.

Also, are you complaining that you cannot be mugged as easily?

[coldtea]

>The insane conceit of a "cash-less society" has already created situations where you cannot physically force someone to take money from you.

You'd be very very surprised...

[hammock]

Yeah isn’t that the sinister point of CBDC’s… transforming our world to what you get is doled by daddy govt

[googlryas]

Stand up comedians are saying this while they're...performing standup?

[bostik]

I wish I could remember who said this, because it was a standup saying something ... in an interview. Not performing.

"It's a sad state of affairs when the most accurate political commentary is done by comedians, while the country is being governed by clowns." Such an apt description of the UK. And while that was said two governments (ie. less than a year) ago, it's only slightly less accurate now.

[jimbokun]

When could that have not been truthfully said?

Wasn't the court jester the only telling the truth a trope hundreds of years ago?

[bmicraft]

Or a child, in the case of The Emperor's New Clothes

[DennisP]

I've seen Jon Stewart say very similar things.

[coldtea]

Yeah, so?

Your comment is like saying "CEOs saying the current market is bad for their industry, while ...still running companies?!"

It's not like the observation that a trade is being hurt (in this case, in the kind of disconnect between your job being pointing out absurdity as something that stands out and making it funny, and a society that seems to drown and revel in it) cannot be done by practitioners of said trade while they practice it...

[robertlagrant]

No it's like saying "CEOs saying they're out of a job while being CEOs".

[coldtea]

No, that's the uncharitable, strawman version, that goes for pedanticness over understanding what it means.

It's more like a crooner saying they're being put out of a job after rock n' roll or the Beatlemania, while still having gigs...

Yes, they might still get work and sell some records, but they have a harder time justifying their career, get smaller audiences, and people see them not that culturally or socially relevant anymore...

[robertlagrant]

It's the opposite of a straw man. The previous post was a straw man, deliberately changing the analogy as well as the subject. I restored the analogy.

[aikendrum]

Standup comedian is a freelance job. It's perfectly possible to be unable to perform and still be a comedian, whether due to lack of material or lack of opportunity.

[thesuitonym]

Tale as old as time... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF2RYhNhBdw

[googlryas]

Yes. But it is not possible to perform while not being able to perform.

[coldtea]

It's still possible to perform while being less able to get gigs, less able to come up with good jokes, less able to make those jokes relevant, increasingly feeling the jokes are superfluous as everything seems to get at satire-level status by itself, etc - in other words while "not being able to perform" and being slowly put out of a job.

Which was the point (and even made in jest)...

[hammock]

No. They say it in interviews, on podcasts, etc.

Most comedians refuse to play shows on college campuses now (once a highly lucrative venue for them) because of the audience

[PuppyTailWags]

Gentle inquiry: Are you a comedian or work in comedy? Can you state a general region of comedy you're familiar with (USA Comedy? UK Comedy?) without doxing yourself?

[I'm not, and therefore have no opinion on this, but I wanted to know where you're getting your repository of knowledge of "most comedians" from and how to contextualize your knowledge in this matter. I'm asking in good faith.]

[nonrandomstring]

Since you ask in good faith (hard to tell around these parts sometimes);

I'm British, middle aged, and yes I have worked in entertainments during my career.

So far I have heard (via media interviews or similar) John Cleese, Mark Thomas, Eddie Izzard, Stewart Lee, Frankie Boyle, Charlie Brooker, Chris Morris, Steve Coogan, Ian Hislop, and Armando Iannucci all say approximately the same thing in a more-or-less serious context.

Of course the "nothing is funny any more" trope is timeless. It doesn't need saying. However, these comics are also serious cultural analysts and they're identifying a genuine sea-change.

[PuppyTailWags]

Thanks for providing me context. If it helps to display the depth of my ignorance about comedy (thus trying to get more context to the claim) I don't know who any of those names are.

[nonrandomstring]

Sorry, it's a very parochially British viewpoint. Perhaps where you are there's also the same undercurrent, just not visible in the mainstream. You may have to dig a little.

Cultural malaise often hides beneath the surface. One of the most frightening accounts of this, on a more international stage, is what Slavoj Zizek had to say on it; He said that in the former Yugoslavia, humour kept ethnic tensions at bay. The civil war was foreshadowed by a creeping political correctness and people "not finding things funny anymore".

[hammock]

I run a podcast that regularly has comics on as guests. These comics are typically on the level of filling theaters across the country. I’m sure the open-mic early-career comics would be happy to play a college

[superchroma]

Comedians weren't lining up to do college campuses 20 years ago either.

[hammock]

College campus is never the preferred venue however as I said, it’s a money maker. Similar to corporate gigs.

The difference is now they’re not worth the trouble.

Seinfeld (not even who you think of as “anti-woke”) has a good take on it you could search for. https://ew.com/article/2015/06/08/jerry-seinfeld-politically...

>“I don’t play colleges.” Seinfeld says teens and college-aged kids don’t understand what it means to throw around certain politically-correct terms. “They just want to use these words: ‘That’s racist;’ ‘That’s sexist;’ ‘That’s prejudice,'” he said. “They don’t know what the hell they’re talking about”

[atourgates]

I think maybe the teens and college age kids DO understand what they're talking about, and the Seinfeld generation doesn't.

The difference is that many in the Seinfeld generation (and other generations) think of "Racism" or "Sexism" as terrible evils that they must never commit.

While likely the "teens and college-aged kids" he's complaining about recognize that we all engage in some level of racism or sexism in our daily internal or external lives.

So, if someone accused Seinfeld of racism or sexism, his reaction might be to defend himself, and say, "No! How dare you!"

But if someone told one of the "woke kids" they were racist or sexist, their reaction would more likely be, "yeah, probably."

To Jerry, being "a racist" is synonymous with being a bad person. The "woke kids" recognize that we're all racist and sexist and prejudiced to some degree, and (hopefully) trying to be better about it.

[superchroma]

Having talked to trans and bi youth, they're cynical, well-read, yet simultaneously naive and emotional, use slurs copiously and ironically, and like any generation, are politically all over the map, including fashy. I would not dare to try and paint these people a certain way.

[nonameiguess]

I would at least like to see real quantifiable evidence that comedy shows on college campuses are less frequent now than they used to be, as opposed to individual comedians who are two generations removed from current college students saying they personally don't feel welcome there any more.

[Melatonic]

Most of the people on a college campus will not even know who Seinfeld is or identify with his jokes at all - he's probably older than their parents. I'm sure there are plenty of younger comedians killing it on campus

[867-5309]

the majority of comedians are residents of said campuses

[cainxinth]

No, they say it on podcasts mostly… where many of them they are making more money than they they ever did at standup.

[keithalewis]

You can always count on the existence of charlatans in every society. People who deceive others to get something by lying have existed since the beginning of recorded history.

[otikik]

My dog has no nose. Ask me how does it smell.

[easywood]

It smells terrible!

[wizardforhire]

Careful, you’re treading in ITAR territory.

[user_7832]

...Does their dog use a radar to smell?

(Context: there was a recent HN post on radar software being restricted in the US partly due to ITAR)

[867-5309]

actively it cannot, passively like dogshite

[ArcMex]

Like a dog?

[zitterbewegung]

There was an issue while I was giving a presentation for a cryptocurrency startup I was a part of and I started telling jokes. Afterward people asked me if I did stand up and I said well I do now.

Absurdity will find a way .

[Barrin92]

>Lately, stand-up comedians have been saying they're out of a job, because the absurdity of reality is escaping parody

that's not a recent phenomenon. It's a cultural debate that's been going on for decades, probably the most prominent figure is David Foster Wallace, the 'New Sincerity' genre as a response to detached irony and that sort of thing.

[pmontra]

They can turn to satire. There is an endless stream of public figures unwillingly creating scripts for them.

[jpm_sd]

"Satire died when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize" - Tom Lehrer

[coldtea]

Yes, but satire is not so effective when everything is satire-able, and people get along fine with everything turned so.

Satire needs a point of sanity and order to stand on (and refer to as the way things should be, versus the bad version it mocks).

[papito]

The race to the bottom, this unwinding of civilization, should halt and rewind at some point after people realize this is unsustainable. Hopefully.

Seems like the nihilists, the "nothing matters" crowd, and the neo-libertarians (chaos is good) have been having a bad streak lately.

[yackback]

Simulacra! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

[kjkjadksj]

A good comedian can split your sides with a bit about waiting in line even.

[jeltz]

I think that you are just getting old.

[nonrandomstring]

That is true. And the older I get, the funnier things are.

I just don't see many young people laughing these days.

[ekianjo]

Taxes have never been as high as now in recent history. You dont have to worry about them going away.

[pavlov]

In the US, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 70% as recently as 1981. It was 92% in 1952.

Today it's 37%. So it's really the other way around — taxes have never been as low as now in recent history.

[sumtechguy]

That is US federal taxes. Now go grab your check and see how much you are paying in taxes that are not called that. Then remember you also pay taxes when you buy things too. Also remember your must carry insurance (3 of those). Also in some cases just for owning something. Plus state and local. My theory is We did not really lower taxes that much. We just itemized the bill to make it look smaller.

[guhidalg]

[flagged]

[bena]

Yes, it is tiring when someone posts something with absolutely no evidence is taken at face value as truth. But when someone offers evidence to the contrary, it gets argued to death. "What are taxes?" "Insurance is a type of tax." "Sales tax counts now."

None of these people are making the same arguments to the poster who offered nothing but a claim. Because "of course it's true, everyone knows it". Well, everyone is quite capable of being wrong. As those self-same people will happily tell us when it's time to enact some very mild preventative measures for the health and safety of the country that the vast majority of health professionals recommend.

[sumtechguy]

22 + 12 + 3 + 5 + 10 + 7 Those are my percentages of 'tax/insurance'. Which contains must carry insurance and called by the supreme court as a tax as argued by the DoJ. Three of them contain 'hidden' taxes or as your boss's accountant puts it, 'your total compensation'. That is about ~60% of my incoming going towards 'taxes'. That is just for me where I live and my income level. I also am leaving out some others. In some states that number is more along the lines of 70-75% of your total income. We also play games with the Laffer curve so it is harder for anyone to really know what is going on.

My argument is we itemized the bill. All of the individual items look lower. Because we broke them out. The whole number is about the same. I would argue that some are too low for our spend rate but that is a different argument.

[Dracophoenix]

In 1952, there were so many carveouts and exemptions that few individuals payed the actual 92%. With fastidious accounting, one's personal tax liability could be zero even if one qualified for the highest income bracket. This was the case until 1970 following Congress's invention and institution of the Alternative Minimum Tax. And while 1981 wasn't the most friendly year for low income taxes, increased globalization meant easier opportunities to set up overseas tax structures for the purpose of reducing one's overall tax burden (what's commonly referred to as tax "avoidance"). To make the claim of highest or lowest tax year for the highest income bracket between 1913 and today is impossible to make without accounting for reductions available in the given year.

[jean_tta]

It's really tricky to compare marginal rates like that. Has the definition of taxable income changed over time? How many people were actually taxed at those marginal rates? And so on.

[bena]

You didn't bother to interrogate the other poster on these aspects. Why is it only tricky when looking at the evidence against the claim?

[jean_tta]

It would be tricky whatever the claim

[mantas]

What about tax for a median citizen?

[pavlov]

I don’t know. It’s pretty difficult to compare when the median citizen’s circumstances have also changed so much.

But in the context of reality’s absurdity reaching escape velocity from parody, it seems fitting that the rich barely pay taxes anymore and are seeking immortality cures like Thiel does. Death and taxes are the postmodern libertarian’s greatest enemies.

[ekianjo]

Taking extremes is a strawman. What matters is what most people pay.

[eesmith]

"Average federal tax rates for all households, by comprehensive household income quintile. 1979 to 2018" at https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-averag...

"Average Total Federal Tax Rate (percent)" is lower for every percentile from 1979 to 2018.

  Year                     1979  2018
  Lowest Quintile           9.3   0.0
  Second Quintile          15.0   8.1
  Middle Quintile          19.1  12.8
  Fourth Quintile          21.7  16.7
  Highest Quintile         27.1  24.4
  All Quintiles            22.4  19.3
  81st - 90th  Percentiles 23.6  20.0
  91st - 95th Percentiles  25.2  21.9
  96th - 99th Percentiles  27.1  24.2
  Top 1%                   35.1  30.2

So is "Average Individual Income Tax Rate (percent)"

  Year                     1979  2018
  Lowest Quintile          -0.2 -12.0
  Second Quintile           4.1  -2.1
  Middle Quintile           7.4   2.2
  Fourth Quintile          10.1   5.9
  Highest Quintile         15.9  15.4
  All Quintiles            11.1   9.4
  81st - 90th  Percentiles 12.3   9.0
  91st - 95th Percentiles  14.1  11.4
  96th - 99th Percentiles  16.8  15.5
  Top 1%                   22.6  23.5

That makes it really hard to accept your claim that "Taxes have never been as high as now in recent history."

Now, sure, there are state taxes, and sales taxes, and payroll taxes, and all sorts of other taxes.

Still, where do you get the numbers to back your statement that after 40+ years of Reaganism and unending legislative attempts to lower taxes, that the numbers now are higher than ever before?

[areyousure]

In case anyone was curious, United States federal tax receipts were $463 billion in FY1979 and $3.33 trillion in FY2018, a growth of a factor of ~7.2 = ~5.2%/year. The population has grown by a factor of ~1.44 = ~0.95%/year and the effect of inflation has been a factor of ~3.63 = ~3.36%/year, which multiply together to a factor of ~5.2 = ~4.33%/year. The receipts grew faster by a factor of ~1.38 = 0.82%/year.

This calculation does not consider the growth of expenditures specifically (as opposed to receipts) and similarly does not consider the growth of GDP (as opposed to inflation).

[PopAlongKid]

Likewise it makes the false assumption that taxes are collected in the same year that income is received. Beginning in the 1980s, many billions of dollars that were subject to tax ended up in IRAs and 401k retirement plans where taxes are deferred for many decades in most cases. Likewise, like kind exchanges of property also defer huge amounts of taxes. So looking at annual tax receipts omits a huge amount of taxed-but-deferred income.

[PopAlongKid]

>This calculation does not consider the growth of expenditures

edit: was meant as reply to a different comment

[eesmith]

Where is the data to back the claim "Taxes have never been as high as now in recent history"?

My data is half-assed, certainly. Surely you should be more critical of someone presenting no data, yes?

[ekianjo]

> "Average federal tax rates for all households

Wait, so you only pay Federal taxes in the US? That's practical if you only cherry pick a part of the data.

[eesmith]

If you read down to the end, I wrote "Now, sure, there are state taxes, and sales taxes, and payroll taxes, and all sorts of other taxes."

I used this to ask for source data for the claim.

[ltbarcly3]

I don't know if taxes are higher now vs some point in history (probably higher than some, lower than others) but your implicit claim that 'taxes' == 'US Federal Income Tax Rate' is so laughable I can't believe you can make it with a straight face. Not everyone is from the US, and the people from the US know that there are like 5 levels of taxation, from local sales tax to property tax to state income tax, state personal property tax, taxes relabeled as 'fees' to circumvent state rules about new tax creation, tariffs, payroll taxes, etc etc etc etc etc. Then there are taxes like social security, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, etc.

Even if all we look at is US federal income taxes, you don't include them all. Social security is a sum of 12.4% of your income (and it is regressive!). Medicare is 2.9%. These have gone up considerably since 1979 (8.1% total in 1979, 15.3% now)

[eesmith]

"so laughable I can't believe you can make it with a straight face"

Which is why I didn't. I specifically pointed out that there are other taxes.

My point was to get ekianjo to present data to support their claim.

Do you have better data?

[otikik]

Not for companies or wealthy people.

[ekianjo]

Are you either?

[otikik]

Irrelevant

[ekianjo]

Nope, because most people are not companies nor wealthy either, so you don't make such an argument on the extremes. That's what is truly irrelevant.

[otikik]

At the time of this writing, 3 Americans own as much as the bottom half of all the Americans [1] .

https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/#richest-amer...

I don't know how you qualify that. I would qualify it as extreme. The fact that "most people are not companies" doesn't matter, what matters is where the wealth is.

[throw827474737]

If that just be true for every tax group we would be in a much fairer world with less issues...

[ThunderSizzle]

No, that is insane.

If anything, sending arbitrary amounts of money to be spent on the interest to pay for the debt of corrupt and failed political ventures is not fair in any regard.

If taxes actually paid for government services, you might have a point, but they do not.