No I’m not “redefining” it. I’m clarifying.
Part of the lie of leftist academe is that before the 1960’s people in western civ were very uptight, straight-laced, non-laughing purists. This was a lie. Fart jokes and other bodily-humor jokes were in fact very common. That is why it was not shock.
I illustrated the difference between low humor and shock as it is currently undertaken.
Go and see the movie. Pump some money into a leftist’s anti-American pockets, and laugh while our culture is knocked down again. I’m done with this discussion. There is a communist in the White House that I need to expose, whose goal I need to block. He is there in large part because of the same anti-establishment mentality that presents Cohen as some sort of “satirical” funny guy.
Sorry you’re redefining. You’ve basically created a definition of shock comedy that is circular, that could only have existed in the last 50 years, to prove that it only exists in the last 50 years.
Nobody is saying they were uptight, straight-laced non-laughing purists. We’re saying they knew farts and fart jokes were not part of polite society, and therefore when someone told a fart joke it was a certain brand of humor, a brand of humor that goes against the rules of polite society, shock comedy.
All you “illustrated” was that you had your own definition of shock comedy which is quite simply false. Low humor and shock comedy have major overlap, you throw out the slapstick from low humor and what you’re left with is the lewd humor which is shock comedy. Now has shock comedy “advanced” to higher levels of shock today? Absolutely, but that doesn’t make it a new invention, it’s just how things change.
And there you go making assumptions. I’m not interested in Bruno. Gay jokes bore me. Whether or not I’m going to see the movie has nothing to do with the fact that your definition of shock comedy is false and creates a false history.