lejend wrote:You could argue that her business is the "spectacle" or her brand, though. She's still good at what she does. If she weren't she wouldn't be successful at it.
Like I said, they're undoubtedly good at something, but that something may not be their main profession, and it also may be something they're not aware or in control of, such as having good looks etc.
That's atcually a very bad analogy. Neither fruit nor guys are trying to be appealing to you. But if they were trying and failed at it, that would mean that it isn't your fault for not liking them.
Sure, the former isn't directly, but what if I go to a restaurant? It's like a review I read on tripadvisor. I give this restaurant 1 out of 5 stars, the food was actually fine, but I don't like indian food. Is it the restaurants fault? If you don't like indian food, you shouldn't go to an indian restaurant. The latter might be. I fail to see, that if a guy would come on to me, but i'm not attracted to him, that this is solely his fault for me not liking him. There's 2 sides to the story, and you just refuse to look at yourself in this. I'm quite sure that many artists don't even try to appeal to everyone. It's impossible to do so, it's a waste of time to try. Sure, if no one likes an artists work, we can perhaps start talking about it being the artists "fault", but then again, nobody really liked van Gogh's work while he was alive, and now he's one of the most famous painters alive and heralded as one of the greatest ever. Was it his fault nobody liked his paintings then? Should he just have painted the things the lejends of his time liked?
Fashion items are made to appeal to people right? So bring me a skirt that is beautiful. I've never seen a skirt beautiful enough that I'd like to wear it. Hmm, not made to appeal to me? Ok, what about rolex watches. Never seen a rolex watch beautiful enough that I want to wear it, so rolex watches must be shit.
I do not owe comedians laughs. They are trying to make me laugh, I am not trying to laugh. That's why people give them money, views, etc. While a comedian can hire people to give him laughs, that's cretainly not the case here. So I'm not failing for not laughing.
They don't owe it to you to make you laugh either. It's not like you can go there, not laugh, and ask for your money back. If they have not told you that they would do anything they didn't do, then they have delivered their end of the bargain. No honest entertainer will ever garantuee 100% satisfaction of their audience. It's impossible. Nobody is talking about failing, if this actually how you think about it, then you clearly have a very weird idea about taste that doesn't connect to how it actually works.
It's silly to believe in a conspiracy of people holding their laughter just to be mean. If a comedian can't make people laugh then ovbiously he sucks at it.
If a comedian can't make you laugh doesn't mean he can't make people laugh. Just not all the people. We already established that Rihanna and Britney don't suck even though not the entire world likes them. People have different tastes. Some like to listen to jazz, others to heavy metal. Does the jazz singer suck at his job as a musician because their work doesn't appeal to some people? That's a silly thing to say.
It's not about witholding laughter consiously, but rather, peoples prejudice and preconceived ideas will influence their experience. It's possible, but unlikely that a KKK member will sit through a dave chapelle show, and walk out at the other end going like omg this was the funniest stuff ever. It's much more likely that his prejudice will prevent him from enjoying the show. He doesn't walk into the show with an open and honest perception.
On a different level, but the same notion really, is that whenever I watch a history show, I think historical accuracy is a plus and inaccuracy bugs me and makes me appreciate a show less. when the show Vikings came out, I enjoyed it a lot because they had quite historically accurate battle scenes. But as the show became more famous and they wanted to appeal to a bigger audience, they threw historical accuracy overboard in favor of spectacle. it's not their fault that I don't like that latter type of stuff, that's simply my personality. Neither is it my fault that they like to make more money and have more viewers. That's simply business. But they can't both appeal to me who wants accuracy, and to the larger audience who wants spectacle while still having the same budget.
Weve already establishedthat you dont need to appeal to everyone in order to be succesful. This means that the individual judgment, either positive or negative, is not meaningful sec. So the question is what makes you think you are different? Why do you present yourself in this thread as if your approval is the end all judgment and crowning achievement of a female comedians work? You ask for videos as if you liking or disliking the video says anything directly meaningful.
As a sign of empowerment, i invite all women to let their facial hair grow to show that, despite their handicap, they can make it in this world!
Traditionalism just says men and women have different strengths and weaknesses, whether due to biology or socialization, and should complement each other. In most cases that means man working and woman raising children, but it isn't always the case, and women can always work from home of course, which can often be more profitable than a wagecuck job anyway. That is the best path to a happy and healthy society.
