Um what's this supposed to mean? Not that anti-French jokes aren't funny, but this is weirdly unsubstantiated.

This is an interesting point, but how does this apply to luxury goods? Are Rolexes "cool" because they're expensive BECAUSE they are not commonplace?

Are these really mutually exclusive? I think this is a bit extreme.

I think this article is really strong, but it doesn't really agree with or disagree with the original article; it more takes a point of the original article's and takes it further.

With this moralist view, could you also say that spending money on these luxury goods is immoral because it would be better spent on charity?

Isn't the point that people buy luxury goods as a status symbol because they're expensive?

I know this is a small thing, but I'm pretty sure this is mainly because they know they will enjoy their favorite kind of pizza, rather than some kind of status signaling.

I find it interesting how a lot of comedians describe an offensive joke simply as a "bad miss" like this. Along with my earlier point, I don't think these have to be antonyms. I think a joke can be at the same time funny and offensive. A joke being funny and landing with an audience doesn't mean that it isn't racially insensitive - it can be both at the same time.

This is an interesting point. Along with the following paragraph, I think it points out that Chapelle can say whatever he wants as a comic, but he can't deny that his words can hurt people. His defense for this is that he doesn't care if he hurts people, because they can just stop watching - but this doesn't account for the fact that such a specific and offensive joke can still stick in someone's mind for longer.

I also like how this writer distinguishes "successful comedy" from "offensive comedy." A joke can be successful in that it makes someone laugh, but that doesn't mean that it isn't offensive to others and therefore devoid of criticism because "it's just a joke."

I like this argument's point - that it takes less effort to make jokes at a particular group of disempowered people than it takes to make a clever joke about something else. It also resonates with me, personally - I laughed harder at the big about birdshot and buckshot than the bits about trans people or his extremely cringe Chinese accent.

This is definitely not arguing in the best faith. To use vocabulary from last lecture, I don't think I can say this is intellectually honest. He's cherry picking the opposite arguments that are the most ridiculous to try and make fun of instead of honestly engaging with their arguments.

Why is he being sarcastic here? It only comes across as immature and closed-minded, and it doesn't further this person's point.

Here, the Carters are commenting on gender not solely as individuals, but as how it interacts within their relationship. They don't shrug off the concepts of masculinity and femininity entirely, just exchange them for more modern healthy versions that empower rather than destroy their relationship.