• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should This Sick Filth Be Banned?

I don't see the parody. I think he's just being himself. IMHO.

It seems far too obvious to be real. Especially when he's acting like he's talking to a woman and says "You didn't even shave?" Then pans over and it's a dog. Or he seems like he's insulting someone for not communicating, and then it's a bollard.
 
If (and I'm not saying this fellow is an example of this) a bigot isn't allowed to say bigoted stuff how then do we know that they're a bigot?
 
I've always been of the belief that if you don't like a particular brand of comedy, don't watch it. Use the remote and change channels.

This applies here for me; I don't like his comedy so I don't watch it, but others might like it, so why should they not be allowed to do so.

IMO, there is far to much latitude given to so called "offended" people to dictate what others are allowed to enjoy.

Sod 'em I say!!
 
I think we are using "banned" in different ways. If I don't want you to read Mein Kampf for a TV show, is that banned or just my preference as the show producer? Is there some kind of duty to give air time to anyone who wants it?

Same goes for hiring someone at a comedy gig. I'm in no position to ban anyone, but I expect club owners who don't like the material might not want him performing it. Is that a ban?

Maybe we should call this a boycott to avoid the negative free speech implications.

Well, I used Mein Kampf as an example because it is actually banned in some places. I believe that Miley Cyrus is also banned in the Dominican Republic from performing. And according to Cardiff University, praised in the comedians' letter because it has "stood up" against that sort of thing, has been...

A controversial comedian dubbed “sexist and inappropriate” for his shocking act has been told he is not welcome at Cardiff University Students’ Union.

More than 700 students signed a petition demanding "proper lad" Dapper Laughs' Socially Unacceptable tour not be held at the union's Y Plas venue in February.

Now the Students’ Union has cancelled his scheduled gig.

The Union said Dapper Laughs, real name Daniel O'Reilly, was banned after students complained his show “trivialised rape, unprotected sex and dehumanising of women.”

...as Student Unions spend much of their time finding things to ban to prevent any corruption of the tiny malleable minds of its charges.
 
I've always been of the belief that if you don't like a particular brand of comedy, don't watch it. Use the remote and change channels.

This applies here for me; I don't like his comedy so I don't watch it, but others might like it, so why should they not be allowed to do so.

IMO, there is far to much latitude given to so called "offended" people to dictate what others are allowed to enjoy.

Sod 'em I say!!


There does seem to be a great deal of condescension involved by those who are 'offended'. Do they think that it negatively influences them somehow to watch things they find offended? Or do they think that they are absolutely fine but they're trying to protect those that they view as less intellectually capable than they are?
 
If (and I'm not saying this fellow is an example of this) a bigot isn't allowed to say bigoted stuff how then do we know that they're a bigot?

Which is why the Daily Mail have an ongoing mission to seek out the naughtiest and smuttiest things they can find to be outraged about. I remember when they once sent one of their intrepid explorers to a suburban strip club to report on the kinds of sordid sins that the local residents can be tempted into handing over a few hundred pounds for.
 
Arabella Weir considers herself a comedian?
 
Last edited:
The politically correct, trendy leftie strand of comedy is dominant here, maybe Ben Elton started it.

Whose comedy appeal always escaped me. But the political climate of Thatcher's Britain may have had a lot to do with it, a time when anyone remotely left-wing had little else but satire to turn to.

I'm thinking of the likes of Marcus Brigstock (can't stand him) the main guy on The News Quiz (pretty funny) and Mark Steel (brilliant).

You seem to have dropped the name of Jeremy Hardy out of the middle of that sentence.
 
A group of comedians wrote a patronizing letter about how what he does cannot be considered "boundary pushing" and how the comedian behind it is obviously some mixed up and confused bloke who should be battling against gender inequality instead of "reinforcing" it.

http://www.chortle.co.uk/correspondents/2014/11/10/21279/you_are_not_pushing_at_boundaries

The thing that strikes me most about that list of 44 "comedians" is that I only recognise around half a dozen of them, and then all females, which includes Jenny Éclair, a.k.a "the black hole where comedy dies." I say "comedians," because some are more comic actors than stand-ups.
 
If he's got an audience, I guess I have no problem with them wanting to see him. I don't see anything funny in him, but he's less offensive than Andrew Dice Clay (whose offense was thinking that the world was stupid enough to buy his routine), and while I had a one-man boycott of The Diceman, I think you just let these guys run their course. If he's got more than one joke (so far it's one joke, retold), he might survive.

Personally, I think he's thinking of stopping payments to his publicist. Doesn't need one, now. I'm pretty sure his popularity will shoot up. (We have at least ten potential fans in the "anything that pisses SJWs off is fine by me" camp.)
 
Personally, I don't think any form of free expression should be banned or censored, unless that free expression infringes on the rights of others.
 
There does seem to be a great deal of condescension involved by those who are 'offended'. Do they think that it negatively influences them somehow to watch things they find offended? Or do they think that they are absolutely fine but they're trying to protect those that they view as less intellectually capable than they are?

That's probably the dead-on, bang real reason right there.
 
He was a causality of that "pick up" bloke who was not allowed into the country. When he was denied permission it was as if "they" had to have a victim to maul and this non connected was an easy target.
 
If he's got an audience, I guess I have no problem with them wanting to see him.

I think the problem for the "comedians" is that he does have an audience.

There does seem to be a great deal of condescension involved by those who are 'offended'. Do they think that it negatively influences them somehow to watch things they find offended? Or do they think that they are absolutely fine but they're trying to protect those that they view as less intellectually capable than they are?

Well, they went to university you know. They can do the same material as well as it will be "irony". With this Dapper Laughs character it looks like he might be plebeian enough to actually mean it.
 
Just in the short clip I have seen. It doesn't bother me that much. It's not my type of comedy.

The critics might have some points. Not sure if young teens can get it the same way adults can.
 
Last edited:
This would be a good place for a quote from a warrior hero

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all- Noam Chomsky

If O'Reilly want's to play the warrior game all he has to do is wait for a tweet that says something like "go jump off a cliff" or "die in a fire" then spin it into a death threat, slam down that victim card then declare victory.
 
Per UK law if he has offended somebody then he should be tried, convicted, and imprisoned.
 

Back
Top Bottom