Joking about Jacko's death – Idiocy vs Idiocy

No laughing matter? Michael Jackson and celebrity death jokes - guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/...

Jacko gags hit the internet within hours of the singer's death. Richard Herring, Arthur Smith and Marcus Brigstocke argue that they're not tasteless, but a counterweight to media coverage – and the ultimate challenge for comedians

“it acted as a counterweight to the mainstream media's "mawkish" coverage of the story…..In the eyes of most comics, their role is to push the boundaries of what the public will accept.”

“

If the content of the counterweight is determined by the value of the weight it attempts to counter, then, in that, these 'comedians' are as much a product of ‘Jacko’, than they would like to think.  Idiocy counterweighted with idiocy reinforces it.

~ ed

What is the west thinking about?  They produce the ubiquitous and idiotic ‘fan’ on a global scale, and as a ‘counterweight’, overpaid jesters who joke about the demise of celebrities.

These idiots calling themselves ‘comedians’, do not, as they like to think, provide a ‘counterweight’ to the ‘mawkish’ media coverage of a celebrity’s death.  Rather, they complement idiocy with idiocy.  What is gained at the end of it all?  Greater insight?  Understanding?  No.  Rather, the whole event simply serves to further and generically reinforce the idiocy it takes to produce the ‘fan’, just as it reinforces the gross stupidity and inhumanity it takes to lunge like laughing hyenas over the corpse of their deities.  Is this the best the west is capable of?  Countering stupidity with inhumanity?  Ever heard of an intelligent ‘counterweight’?  If the content of the counterweight is determined by the value of the weight it attempts to counter, then, in that, you are as much a product of ‘Jacko’, than you like to think.

And, additionally, to ‘push the boundaries of what the public will accept’ must be done intelligently.  Given that what the public generally appreciates is founded on a superficial appreciation of reality, laughing at their sensitivities does little to undermine the basis upon which their superficial perspectives are produced.  Rather, what it does is not to increase the collective intelligence, but push the boundaries wherein superficial perspectives are utilised.  And when all is profaned, and all love of the potentials of the self is labelled as ‘narcissism’, all that remains and which is taken seriously is your role as cogs and wheels of an elite orchestrated system of which you would have played a crucial role in delivering.  

Now, I dare say, this brief article does more as a true counterweight to the weight of the west’s stupidity in this matter than the contribution of all their celebrities, jesters and their global harem of ‘fans’ put together.

Ed