Humor doesn’t HAVE TO punch down. There can be good LGBTQ+ jokes that are inclusive and sensitive, and, yes, actually funny while including the community and everyone in the humor without being hurtful.

It takes skill and craft to create them, and to deliver them, but, yes, they can exist.

Edit: a big part of comedy is commenting on things one observes. And there is lots to observe and comment upon with queer culture. The key is to comment and observe without being a bigot. Sooo… with a queer eye, that’s fertile ground, and one can do much with that.

I think one of Dave’s mistakes is in thinking he didn’t have any “down.” His humor is brilliant and searing when it comes to being black. He’s done skits where he’s a slave. He sees himself as the historical victim of the ages and never imagined that anyone could take what he says as coming from above. Classic privilege blindness, and a great illustration of what that means intersectionally.

I feel like this punching model is like Newtonian physics. We do have relativity now, but you gotta take a higher-level class for that one.

Right? I finished it sincerely wondering if it was intended to be comedy or not. There wasn't a single coherent joke in ninety minutes. Unless I was supposed to laugh that he bought a fire station and turned it into a club?

Aww, haha.
I guess I can't really help, but I appreciate you. :p

Also, I was looking at your comment history because I was curious what kind of person you were. That guy activating his yugioh trap card and calling you a pedophile because you flippantly said 12-years and not 19 or whatever he wanted is so fucking funny. It didn't even make sense. That was like watching a bird glide into a glass window.

Yeah, the trouble maker part. Or people that are violent, etc. Going to punk music shows with mosh pits, etc..

As a counterpoint laws around hate speech do and have existed in Canada since 1970 and they are specific. We as a country also are more progressive than the states.

The way it works interfaces with the idea that some speech can call for violence or genocide against other geoups and can be liable to be charged under law UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.

1 - It has to be public - ie one is playing to a crowd. This covers things like making speeches over a microphone, or broadcasting propaganda through print or recording. This law does not apply to private speech. Amongst your peers in a social setting you can do or say whatever you like.

2 - It must regard the call for killing members of an identifiable group (ones outlined in the charter of Rights and Freedoms), or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group.

3 - It holds other protections- Laws that cover other rights like religion do allow religious views to be expressed or ones that pretain to a legitimate concern of public welfare. These however require citations from legitimate sources. If you are quoting a true historical event or a scientifically proven fact in your speech that actually happened and is documented by historians or scientists - there are protections. If what you are saying is provably untrue then the law takes into account a certain level of flexibility to sentencing based on a good faith understanding that a certain level of deviance from fact can be present as a matter of someone being ignorant.

4 - Like all laws it is a sliding scale. Like you can call the police for someone being a public nuisance by yelling their heads off at 3am - Most of the time this doesn't end in so much as a fine. In a non broadcast recording setting the cops basically tell the person to stop and only if they persist can they be arrested and even then they might not be charged. Nobody really has seen prison time under this law. Just fines.

A recent amendment to the law specifying holocaust denial has seen people sent to prison and even then it has only shut down those doing it persistently online because that specific rhetoric is historically documented as coming from a movement with clear intent to promote genocide.

The imagining of laws as not being capable of having balance with civil rights activism is a sham and it ultimately hurts minorities. Advocating for better rights or social acceptance cannot be punishable under these laws. Heck advocating for the decriminalization of hate speech is protected speech because there are laws REGARDING protected speech. If someone is calling to kill or inlict utter undeniable misery then they can do it without the benefit of a megaphone. It won't stop all speech, and it shouldn't, but if someone is trying to incite actual violence by documenting themselves advocating for actual demonstatable violence then society can have tools to make the cost of that higher.

However - Americans have an entirely different situation. Canada does not have private prisons that provide more pressure to incarcerate more people. We do not elect judges and the only way you can become one is to be a lawyer in good standing for over 8 years. Our documents regarding rights and freedoms is in modern language and not archaic text that requires historical scholarship to contextualize and deconstruct. There is no doctrine in Canadian law to protect the anachronistic interests of long dead founders of the country.

Law in America is much easier to use as tools of oppression. Your paranoia is not unfounded but it is a product of legally speaking coming from a broken home. Laws can be narrow and specific scalpels and not hammers. If they are made in the spirit of protection from violence and narrowed to that purpose they can be good. The rallying cry of "Freedom of speech" is already not absolute and has reasonable limits. It can and does have reasonable limits and those limits are protective of truth and the bodily safety of your fellow citizens who deserve to not be attacked and killed by other citizens radicalized by rhetoric made into weapons.

Keep your mind open.

I agree the state should not infringe speech. You are free to blow more word count than is actually in the First Amendment on reminding us that it exists, and you did. I get it.

But we can hold the belief that the state should stay out of it even while we personally shit on assholes spewing hate and crying “free speech” when they get a reaction to it. They have free speech - they cry about it because they want it to be guaranteed bandwidth / freedom from consequences. Fuck them and fuck that.

I genuinely get how it can be a fine line, but people are at too much risk to allow poisonous words to go too far. We saw how powerful such lies can be in 2025, from people who literally regard the entire trans movement as terrorism.

Nazis can be allowed to state any thought that falls under basic logical/philosophic debate. That, to their minds, doesn't go very far. Once it becomes any form of grouping by identity, by circumstances of birth, by sexuality, it's just their incessant, generations-old obsession with hatred and is useless for any and all human discussion of progress. There is no grace in protecting it.

I'm going to assume American History X. Though it's certainly not the only movie to depict the neo-Nazi subculture, it's probably the most well know.

Wild guess because I like guessing: American history x