This story is unavailable.

Comedy isn’t outdated — standing in front of an audience with a microphone is.

Young people get comedy — comedy is misery plus company. They def/ understand unhappy.

Instead, youth just appear to be terrible at being audience members. When you are a special little snow flake and the star of the world — it must seem very difficult to allow for someone else to hold a microphone in front of you while you sit quietly.

It is the act of listening to others speak that seems increasingly impossible for future generations. Whether the person holding the microphone is attempting to be funny or not is irrelevant. Future humans will be just as likely to storm the stage at a poetry slam and call it “racist” as they would at a comedy store.

The mic is power and youth are conditioned to demand that no single individual hold power — that would be “racist” or “misogynist” or some sort of “ist.”

I have always wanted to masterbate in public, comedy seems as close as you can get without being arrested.

I have met many a young person and I have never made one laugh, but it could be because I am not funny. Most of the motherfuckers I see on a daily basis are swiping left on happiness. They swipe right on games without a point — what in the hell is the point of Pokemon Go.

Youth are fashioned to not put up too much of a fight, unless there is someone stepping out of disciplinary line. This is why comedy can appear so vile to them, it is out of the order of things for someone to have control of the moment— it does not fit into the powerless box that they have been snuggly been placed into. The “ist” police agent will demand the floor only to give it back to the people, so that no one can stand on stage and everyone is safe to check Facebook Snapchat or catch non-sexual pocket monsters.

Madness: the trick through which men, in the gesture of sovereign reason that locks up their neighbor, communicate and recognize each other in the merciless language of non-madness; the identity of the same in the “reign of truth” — Foucault

Today is nothing new. Foucault tells us of “madness” that it was the trick through which humans could contain each other within normative modes of living. If one were to step out of line with the daily routine of “sanity”, “madness” would be there to get one committed to the house of purification.

Racism and sexism are the new madness, they are limit cases in which one can be found to be out of line with language — and put in a new category that does not deserve a “voice.” The trick of “madness” of “hysteria”, was to create separate spaces for the “unclean” in which their unclean voices could go unheard.

Madness like racism and sexism and the other “isms” and “ists” are the police function themselves — they act to ensure the holiness of this space, where we are not mad, where we are not racist or sexists, and we continually prove it by checking in, but uploading and downloading our acceptable nature. The space for racism, the space for sexism (the Republican National Convention) is a space that makes sure that we know there is punishment for getting out of line.

The agents of the sanctity of language surround us, ensuring that this space does not turn into that “other” space. In doing so it ensures that it defines the “other” that we are all so responsible for protecting (thereby imagining the “other” as incapable of defending themselves, which is the actual harm of depriving the “other” the agency to speak for themselves) as a member of “us” within the confines of this “safe space.”

What is constitutive is the action that divides madness, and not the science elaborated once this division is made and calm restored. What is originative is the caesura that is the distance between reason and nonreason; reasons subjugation of non-reason , wresting from its truth as madness , crime, or disease, derives explicitly from this point. Hence we must speak of that initial dispute without assuming a victory, or the right to a victory; we must speak of those actions re examined in history, leaving in abeyance all that may figure as a conclusion , as a refuge in truth; we shall have to speak of this act of scission, of this distance set, of this void instituted between reason and what is not reason, without ever relying upon the fulfilment of what is claims to be.

Who determines what is racist? Who determines what is sexist? Who determines what is funny? That, is the very question for the person who demands retribution for an “offensive” joke. It is always power that determines the lines to be drawn. To be offended is to be offended for power itself. It is no longer state power; it will not be corporate power for much longer; it is the power of a decentralized headless power — the power of science fiction books run by an algorithm that has only one goal — to ensure that it is the still running.

Comedy is problematic because it doesn’t recycle life, it attempts to break the world view, and people today just want to be thrown out with the rest of the garbage silently. They just want to live quiet little lives of fake political action, leaving every stone unturned.

If you step too far out of box, some “ist” police agent will be there to tell you to “sit the fuck down” with a mindless self righteousness. They will be there to remind you that power is always present and never yours.

Language is the first and last structure of madness, its constituent form,on language are based all the cycles in which madness articulates its nature. That the essence of madness can be ultimately defined in the simple structure of a discourse does not reduce it to a purely psychological nature, but gives it a hold over the totality of soul and body; such discourse is both the silent language by which the mind speaks to itself in the truth proper to it, and the visible articulation in the movements of the body…all the forms of immediate communication which we have seen manifested,in madness are suspended between soul and body in this single language and in its powers. The movement of passion which persists until it breaks and turns against itself, the sudden appearance of the image, and the agitations of the body which were its visible concomitants — all this, even as we were trying to reconstruct it, was already secretly animated by this language. If the determinism or passion is transcended and released in the hallucination of the image, if the image in return, has swept away the whole world of beliefs and desires, it is because the delirious language was already present — a discourse which liberated passion from all its lim-its, and adhered with all the constraining weight of its affirmation to the image which was liberating itself. -Foucault