PC Board OT thread

[bondom34]

Yet another likeable Demarcus Cousins moment...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/boogiecousins/status/612105455607754752[/tweet]

[RSCD3_]

Yet another likeable Demarcus Cousins moment...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/boogiecousins/status/612105455607754752[/tweet]

No wonder he wants th Kings to draft WCS; he's too lazy to protect the paint.

[Doctor MJ]

Social Justice Warriors, the angry mobs you see on twitter and other social media looking to police opinions and get offended at every perceived social transgression by others.

Ah. I think you have to pick your battles. I'm sure I've been accused of being a SJW before. There is a Facebook NBA group I am part of with a ton of racism, homophobia, sexism and bullying. I stand up against it when I see it, and I feel like an old grandpa at times.

No, then you are not an SJW. Calling out legit racism, sexism, homophobia etc. is not SJW-ism.

That's the distinction, SJWs are the PC police. If I say something like, "I think NBA is more fun to watch than the WNBA" on twitter I can probably expect the wrath of the SJWs and expect to get called all sorts of name in the process. That's the difference between what you do and SJWs.

Edit: The main point that I was making with comedians was that these days when they make "racist" or "sexist jokes" they are boycotted and given hell for it by SJWs. It's gotten to the point where even plain vanilla comedians like Seinfeld are speaking out against it.

Sorry, but it's not this clean and clear cut.

So first, If the term "Social Justice Warriors" can be basically defined as people getting butthurt with no hope of helping social justice, then basically it's just one person calling people he finds absurd by that definition, and the boundary has no objective basis. You don't call Moonbeam an SJW, but someone else probably does.

Second, something I've seen on this in another context: I'm going to Worldcon this summer and so have been following the Hugo Award nominations. Turns out they basically got taken over this year by a group called the Sad Puppies who decided to "take back" the awards from the SJWs - and yes "SJWs" are the official enemy that the Sad Puppies defined themselves again. So they put out a slate of books & stories to vote for, and almost exclusively those became the nominees because they voted in a block while no one else did. Putting aside the fact this is problematic as it means that the nominations are decided by the 3 leaders of the Sad Puppy movement rather than by a larger group, there's this question:

If SJWs are people who just look to pick apart others for not being PC enough...how the hell did they take over science fiction awards in the first place? I mean, obviously it means that SJWs were writing a lot of books and such, and probably those books didn't involve looking to crucify specific individuals. Clearly this must mean that the people in this case are just butthurt because other people have a different preference for science fiction than they do, and then they proceed to label those other people they hate "SJWs"...which they do because they are already calling people they hate SJWs in other circles.

So yeah, I say all this not because I deny that an overzealous PC police exists, but because from what I see it has everything to do with backlashes against backlashes, and from the moment people started with the SJW stuff, Gamergate stuff, etc, we moved past a time where the out there people were the PC police. At best now what we could simply say is that there extremists on both sides typically too cowardly to do anything in person but will talk big within an internet mob.

[Doctor MJ]

Not to get too political here but what's with the SJWs these days that want to censor comedians? I laugh when SJWs complain about comedians being "offensive" because they didn't like the joke being made. Even a vanilla comedian like Jerry Seinfeld came out against censoring comedians recently and how he refuses to play college campuses anymore because people can't take a joke anymore.

Just continuing the thoughts from my last post but now just focusing on the comedian's perspective here:

I think there is a legit concern that comedians can't be comedians if people get to PC about stuff, and at any point the PC stuff may have gone to far. I honestly haven't paid enough attention, but what I will say is that if we're talking about this being an internet driven phenomenon, then we're talking about Twitter, right? The 2010s.

Okay, now remember Seinfeld's personal history here: He is friends with Michael Richards whose career got destroyed after making racist jokes in 2006. Given that Seinfeld feels like things didn't use to be this way, but now comedians have a real concern of the revenge of the PC people, is it realistic to think that what happened to Richards isn't HUGE in Seinfeld's mind on the subject?

Okay now go watch Richards' 2006 rant if you're so inclined. I won't link to it here, but it's on YouTube. What you're going to see is that it's entirely beyond the debate whether Richards' was off-the-charts offensive in no small part because he was TRYING to be offensive. He got mad at a black guy, and the proceeded to say everything he could think of to offend him. I really don't think it's even about 2006 being some kind of key year, it could have happened in the 1990s easily and had the same effect on Richards' career certainly.

Now in terms of takeaways:

1) Most simply: You can't use Richards as an example of getting offended to easily, and thus blaming sincere comedians for accidentally crossing a line. This was Richards purposefully crossing every line he could. Thus, what happened to Richards has nothing to do getting in the way of comedians doing their best to be comedians. When Richards went in the direction he did, no "comedian's protection" should apply, and no other comedians should be paranoid. Don't want what happened to Richards' happen to you, then don't purposefully be an ass.

2) But people overreact about what this says about Richards in general for the very same reason. This isn't stuff slipping out in casual conversation. This is Richards saying stuff to shock, and then directly addressing the shock to his audience. And this is where it's important to remember that a comedian is on stage and has his adrenaline way up. Plus, honestly, Richards does seem intoxicated to me - possibly just from the adrenaline, but quite possibly not.

There is a definite truth here: Sometimes comedians are going to do indefensible things on the stage one night that they wouldn't have done if they hadn't been on the stage. And if afterward they are willing to say they were wrong, that should mean something. Richards can certainly be argued to have too much happen to him as a result of one night.

I would imagine that's how Seinfeld feels, and understandably so. On the other hand 2 things are telling about Seinfeld's current stance and the narratives that have come from this:

1) So far as I know, he isn't bringing up Richards here, and no one is asking him how Richards' fall has affected him. That's a rather amazing omission that I cannot be the first person to have realized. On some level, it's a choice for Seinfeld to fight against the PC police in 2015 based on characterizing that other side as complaining about silly little stuff, rather than against the stuff Richards said, and we shouldn't take that to mean anything other than a pragmatic manipulation.

2) Part of the narrative here is that it's a "vanilla" comedian talking about these concerns. This makes people think and say "Well if even Seinfeld is afraid, then no one is safe?", when it actuality, Seinfeld always was safe in his vanilla era, and to the extent he's not safe now, it's because he's specifically choosing to get involved with controversial topics.

Last thought here: Someone in this thread mentioned Louis C.K. as their current favorite comedian, to which I wholeheartedly agree. Chris Rock was also mentioned, as he should be he's a legend, and I'll note that Rock unabashedly calls Louis the best comedian working today. Now, Louis C.K. actually IS someone who pushes the envelope as a rule. That has everything to do with why he's had this late breakout as a comedian, as a middle aged man he's found ways to do it through the life he's led that are just astonishing.

So, if there's a comedian who in theory should be afraid of the PC police, it should be Louis C.K. So getting back to us: Does Louis C.K. seem afraid to you?

I mean there are minor rumblings taking issue with him on the internet, but has there been anything serious? Because all I see is him winning more awards and selling out venues that are just crazy (he played 4 times at Madison Square Garden on the same tour because demand was that high for him).

[PaulieWal]

Doc, I will reply to both your posts together.

As for your first post, I don't agree or disagree because I am really not aware of the examples you are bringing up. I am never the one to pretend to know something if I really don't. My main exposure to the PC police and SJWs has come from social media and different comedians.

While I agree that there isn't an objective discussion I have never anyone calling out legit isms (like Moonbeam) a SJW though I am sure some do. As Eballa and I were discussing, younger people our age are extremely PC these days surprisingly. And I do agree with your backlashes to backlashes comment as it happens in many facets of life and society but this is something else we are talking about where college profs are worried about students these days having a closed mind on campus and requiring 'trigger warnings' for any material that doesn't fit the mainstream narrative of how things should be.

As for your second post, to the best of my knowledge I don't think Seinfeld's inspiration for him calling out the PC police stems from the Richards incident way back when. He's only been talking about this stuff recently and mostly focusing on college campuses. To be very clear there isn't a defense for what he did IMO and he was clearly over the line (at least to me).

Bill Maher too recently has been on the anti-SJW bandwagon and this is him talking about it on his last week's show:

Some NSFW language:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNJyDyCocGQ[/youtube]


Anyway, you bring up good points overall and I will end my post by saying I don't think such extreme PC-ness can be good for the discourse in our society IMO.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc, I will reply to both your posts together.

As for your first post, I don't agree or disagree because I am really not aware of the examples you are bringing up. I am never the one to pretend to know something if I really don't. My main exposure to the PC police and SJWs has come from social media and different comedians.

While I agree that there isn't an objective discussion I have never anyone calling out legit isms (like Moonbeam) a SJW though I am sure some do. As Eballa and I were discussing, younger people our age are extremely PC these days surprisingly. And I do agree with your backlashes to backlashes comment as it happens in many facets of life and society but this is something else we are talking about where college profs are worried about students these days having a closed mind on campus and requiring 'trigger warnings' for any material that doesn't fit the mainstream narrative of how things should be.

As for your second post, to the best of my knowledge I don't think Seinfeld's inspiration for him calling out the PC police stems from the Richards incident way back when. He's only been talking about this stuff recently and mostly focusing on college campuses. To be very clear there isn't a defense for what he did IMO and he was clearly over the line (at least to me).

Bill Maher too recently has been on the anti-SJW bandwagon and this is him talking about it on his last week's show:

Some NSFW language:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNJyDyCocGQ[/youtube]


Anyway, you bring up good points overall and I will end my post by saying I don't think such extreme PC-ness can be good for the discourse in our society IMO.

And I'm with you on the general concern here. Honestly I probably wouldn't have responded as I did if I wasn't seeing how SJW is getting in much more far reaching ways. There is something of a cultural war going on here, and to me using the language of one of the two sides makes you essentially take sides even if you don't mean to, which is particularly noteworthy because I think it's best not to be on either side. And honestly, I'm guessing that's how most of us feel.

One other note, relating both to the college prof thing, and the Clint Eastwood joke Maher references:

What they are really talking about is not fear of the college student, nor fear of gossip, but the fear that the thing will snowball and that effects how corporations play their hand.

When it comes to TV, honestly it doesn't bother me that much. There WILL be avenues for more honest comedy out there, and in this day and age, we'll find you if you're doing something great somewhere.

With the profs, it's a bigger issue, for those who don't know: The stated fear isn't actually that someone will get seriously offended, but that the job market for tenure is so competitive nowadays - because so many people want it, and universities are realizing they don't actually need to give it to anyone - that any little thing can cause them to decide they are better off with someone new. I'll say up front that this makes me sick for multiple reasons. One of which is that it means that in specific instances some knucklehead can have far more power than they should. But the bigger thing is the trend in academia which is making going that route as a young intellectual far, far less enticing than it used to be, and will no doubt have effects damping down the boldness of the people who are supposed to be leaders of free thought.

It's not the end of the world, we don't know how all things will change, and some changes will be for the best, but that particular effect is an ugly one.

[PaulieWal]

And I'm with you on the general concern here. Honestly I probably wouldn't have responded as I did if I wasn't seeing how SJW is getting in much more far reaching ways. There is something of a cultural war going on here, and to me using the language of one of the two sides makes you essentially take sides even if you don't mean to, which is particularly noteworthy because I think it's best not to be on either side. And honestly, I'm guessing that's how most of us feel.

One other note, relating both to the college prof thing, and the Clint Eastwood joke Maher references:

What they are really talking about is not fear of the college student, nor fear of gossip, but the fear that the thing will snowball and that effects how corporations play their hand.

When it comes to TV, honestly it doesn't bother me that much. There WILL be avenues for more honest comedy out there, and in this day and age, we'll find you if you're doing something great somewhere.

With the profs, it's a bigger issue, for those who don't know: The stated fear isn't actually that someone will get seriously offended, but that the job market for tenure is so competitive nowadays - because so many people want it, and universities are realizing they don't actually need to give it to anyone - that any little thing can cause them to decide they are better off with someone new. I'll say up front that this makes me sick for multiple reasons. One of which is that it means that in specific instances some knucklehead can have far more power than they should. But the bigger thing is the trend in academia which is making going that route as a young intellectual far, far less enticing than it used to be, and will no doubt have effects damping down the boldness of the people who are supposed to be leaders of free thought.

It's not the end of the world, we don't know how all things will change, and some changes will be for the best, but that particular effect is an ugly one.

Oh, I didn't think you responded negatively or anything. You broadened the discussion and that's always good. And it seems like we agree.

Very interesting POV on the profs and academic. I have also read similar things and some profs have raised concerns that they are scared of "offending" their students, not because that they will be offended but because of the fear of losing their job as it gives the administration an excuse to replace them.

However, as you talked about backlashes to backlashes, I do think eventually the pendulum will swing back and we will see more tolerance of dissenting views again in the mainstream media, academia, and generally in our society.

[E-Balla]

Not to get too political here but what's with the SJWs these days that want to censor comedians? I laugh when SJWs complain about comedians being "offensive" because they didn't like the joke being made. Even a vanilla comedian like Jerry Seinfeld came out against censoring comedians recently and how he refuses to play college campuses anymore because people can't take a joke anymore.

Just continuing the thoughts from my last post but now just focusing on the comedian's perspective here:

I think there is a legit concern that comedians can't be comedians if people get to PC about stuff, and at any point the PC stuff may have gone to far. I honestly haven't paid enough attention, but what I will say is that if we're talking about this being an internet driven phenomenon, then we're talking about Twitter, right? The 2010s.

Okay, now remember Seinfeld's personal history here: He is friends with Michael Richards whose career got destroyed after making racist jokes in 2006. Given that Seinfeld feels like things didn't use to be this way, but now comedians have a real concern of the revenge of the PC people, is it realistic to think that what happened to Richards isn't HUGE in Seinfeld's mind on the subject?

Okay now go watch Richards' 2006 rant if you're so inclined. I won't link to it here, but it's on YouTube. What you're going to see is that it's entirely beyond the debate whether Richards' was off-the-charts offensive in no small part because he was TRYING to be offensive. He got mad at a black guy, and the proceeded to say everything he could think of to offend him. I really don't think it's even about 2006 being some kind of key year, it could have happened in the 1990s easily and had the same effect on Richards' career certainly.

Now in terms of takeaways:

1) Most simply: You can't use Richards as an example of getting offended to easily, and thus blaming sincere comedians for accidentally crossing a line. This was Richards purposefully crossing every line he could. Thus, what happened to Richards has nothing to do getting in the way of comedians doing their best to be comedians. When Richards went in the direction he did, no "comedian's protection" should apply, and no other comedians should be paranoid. Don't want what happened to Richards' happen to you, then don't purposefully be an ass.

2) But people overreact about what this says about Richards in general for the very same reason. This isn't stuff slipping out in casual conversation. This is Richards saying stuff to shock, and then directly addressing the shock to his audience. And this is where it's important to remember that a comedian is on stage and has his adrenaline way up. Plus, honestly, Richards does seem intoxicated to me - possibly just from the adrenaline, but quite possibly not.

There is a definite truth here: Sometimes comedians are going to do indefensible things on the stage one night that they wouldn't have done if they hadn't been on the stage. And if afterward they are willing to say they were wrong, that should mean something. Richards can certainly be argued to have too much happen to him as a result of one night.

I would imagine that's how Seinfeld feels, and understandably so. On the other hand 2 things are telling about Seinfeld's current stance and the narratives that have come from this:

1) So far as I know, he isn't bringing up Richards here, and no one is asking him how Richards' fall has affected him. That's a rather amazing omission that I cannot be the first person to have realized. On some level, it's a choice for Seinfeld to fight against the PC police in 2015 based on characterizing that other side as complaining about silly little stuff, rather than against the stuff Richards said, and we shouldn't take that to mean anything other than a pragmatic manipulation.

2) Part of the narrative here is that it's a "vanilla" comedian talking about these concerns. This makes people think and say "Well if even Seinfeld is afraid, then no one is safe?", when it actuality, Seinfeld always was safe in his vanilla era, and to the extent he's not safe now, it's because he's specifically choosing to get involved with controversial topics.

Last thought here: Someone in this thread mentioned Louis C.K. as their current favorite comedian, to which I wholeheartedly agree. Chris Rock was also mentioned, as he should be he's a legend, and I'll note that Rock unabashedly calls Louis the best comedian working today. Now, Louis C.K. actually IS someone who pushes the envelope as a rule. That has everything to do with why he's had this late breakout as a comedian, as a middle aged man he's found ways to do it through the life he's led that are just astonishing.

So, if there's a comedian who in theory should be afraid of the PC police, it should be Louis C.K. So getting back to us: Does Louis C.K. seem afraid to you?

I mean there are minor rumblings taking issue with him on the internet, but has there been anything serious? Because all I see is him winning more awards and selling out venues that are just crazy (he played 4 times at Madison Square Garden on the same tour because demand was that high for him).

Actually Jerry got Michael Richards on a ton of shows to apologize and when he was on Letterman with him he was getting angry at the crowd for laughing and telling them to take this seriously because it's a serious issue. If anyone seemed pissed off about what he said it was Jerry (IIRC they just started releasing Seinfeld on DVD around the time this happened). The issue now is colleges banning comedians and telling them what they can or can't say while performing. I've heard stories from comedians about having mics cut off mid set on campuses and not for speech but for topics.

[SactoKingsFan]

The beginning of True Detective season 2 is a major letdown. Nowhere near as compelling as season 1. Hope it gets better.

[sp6r=underrated]

Which actor's films would you pick if you could only watch movies containing one actor?

[sp6r=underrated]

Not to get too political here but what's with the SJWs these days that want to censor comedians? I laugh when SJWs complain about comedians being "offensive" because they didn't like the joke being made. Even a vanilla comedian like Jerry Seinfeld came out against censoring comedians recently and how he refuses to play college campuses anymore because people can't take a joke anymore.

it could have happened in the 1990s easily and had the same effect on Richards' career certainly.

People didn't walk around with recording devices in the 1990s to anywhere near the same extent as 2006 and especially now. That rant most likely would end up unrecorded in the not so recent past and would have ended up an urban legend.

There would have been no easy means of distribution if that rant was recorded pre-internet. There is a highly offensive rant that Earl Weaver, the great baseball manager, went on before he recorded his actual radio interview. I won't link to it here because it probably violates terms of service. A recorded rant today would result in swift termination to any coach including those considered untouchable would be fired. However in the case of Weaver the public only became aware of it after he was long retired when the internet allowed for the easy distribution of recorded materials.

The differences in the extent of recording and the ease of distribution will at the margin limit the comments that get made in public. This may well be a good thing but it shouldn't be denied. The potential benefits to taking a risk on stage have not increased at the same rate as the potential costs.

[Doctor MJ]

Not to get too political here but what's with the SJWs these days that want to censor comedians? I laugh when SJWs complain about comedians being "offensive" because they didn't like the joke being made. Even a vanilla comedian like Jerry Seinfeld came out against censoring comedians recently and how he refuses to play college campuses anymore because people can't take a joke anymore.

it could have happened in the 1990s easily and had the same effect on Richards' career certainly.

People didn't walk around with recording devices in the 1990s to anywhere near the same extent as 2006 and especially now. That rant most likely would end up unrecorded in the not so recent past and would have ended up an urban legend.

There would have been no easy means of distribution if that rant was recorded pre-internet. There is a highly offensive rant that Earl Weaver, the great baseball manager, went on before he recorded his actual radio interview. I won't link to it here because it probably violates terms of service. A recorded rant today would result in swift termination to any coach including those considered untouchable would be fired. However in the case of Weaver the public only became aware of it after he was long retired when the internet allowed for the easy distribution of recorded materials.

The differences in the extent of recording and the ease of distribution will at the margin limit the comments that get made in public. This may well be a good thing but it shouldn't be denied. The potential benefits to taking a risk on stage have not increased at the same rate as the potential costs.

Obviously if no one actually recorded it that would have made a difference, but recordings were being made long before the '90s, and the point is that in terms of PC-ness, you have to go back quite a long ways before what Richards said wasn't way beyond the threshold. Add in that Richards was basically only important in the '90s - because that's when Seinfeld was - and what you have is a much bigger reason for people to care about creating a controversy involving the guy.

[Doctor MJ]

Actually Jerry got Michael Richards on a ton of shows to apologize and when he was on Letterman with him he was getting angry at the crowd for laughing and telling them to take this seriously because it's a serious issue. If anyone seemed pissed off about what he said it was Jerry (IIRC they just started releasing Seinfeld on DVD around the time this happened). The issue now is colleges banning comedians and telling them what they can or can't say while performing. I've heard stories from comedians about having mics cut off mid set on campuses and not for speech but for topics.

I didn't know this. Interesting. Do you have links on comedians being cut off and banned like this? When I google it, the results are dominated by Seinfeld.

[Dr Positivity]

US Open was great, gotta love golf majors

[sp6r=underrated]

I completely agree with you that what Richards said would be basically a career ender in 1994 if it got out to the public so I won't focus on that portion.

Obviously if no one actually recorded it that would have made a difference, but recordings were being made long before the '90s

Not to anywhere near the same extent. I carry around a personal recording device every waking hour. Most people in the thread do now. That wasn't the case in the 90s so the odds that would have been recorded were way lower.

The ease of distribution is equally important. If it was 1992 and I recorded that it would have been on film. Converting film to digital would have been a lot more difficult back then. The percentage of people on the internet back then was way lower so the odds people would have found out would have been way smaller. Most of the famous gossip rags didn't even exists back then. The ones that did were easily bought off. It is now known that part of the reason the Cosby scandal broke later is that NBC and others bribed the tabloid press into not reporting it. Rock Hudson's homosexuality went unreported even though there was recorded evidence in the 1950s because his agents paid off the tabloids.

It really doesn't seem arguable to me that the vast increase in recording along with the ease of distribution will impact what people say as speakers have to weigh the consequences of their words on the public. That change may well be a good thing but it is a change and should be recognized as such. I don't think Seinfeld's concerns are mostly related to Richards and is more related to his very long career in stand-up.

To be succinct: the rational actor model has its limitations but is still valuable. Increase in surveillance and increase in ease of distribution will result in greater self-monitoring.

[Doctor MJ]

I completely agree with you that what Richards said would be basically a career ender in 1994 if it got out to the public so I won't focus on that portion.

Obviously if no one actually recorded it that would have made a difference, but recordings were being made long before the '90s

Not to anywhere near the same extent. I carry around a personal recording device every waking hour. Most people in the thread do now. That wasn't the case in the 90s so the odds that would have been recorded were way lower.

The ease of distribution is equally important. If it was 1992 and I recorded that it would have been on film. Converting film to digital would have been a lot more difficult back then. The percentage of people on the internet back then was way lower so the odds people would have found out would have been way smaller. Most of the famous gossip rags didn't even exists back then. The ones that did were easily bought off. It is now known that part of the reason the Cosby scandal broke later is that NBC and others bribed the tabloid press into not reporting it. Rock Hudson's homosexuality went unreported even though there was recorded evidence in the 1950s because his agents paid off the tabloids.

It really doesn't seem arguable to me that the vast increase in recording along with the ease of distribution will impact what people say as speakers have to weigh the consequences of their words on the public. That change may well be a good thing but it is a change and should be recognized as such. I don't think Seinfeld's concerns are mostly related to Richards and is more related to his very long career in stand-up.

To be succinct: the rational actor model has its limitations but is still valuable. Increase in surveillance and increase in ease of distribution will result in greater self-monitoring.

I definitely agree that the increased media presence is having huge effects on our society, many of them not good.

I still though find myself skeptical when people talk about how tough it has gotten to be a comedian. How many comedians in the past decade have we seen have their career seriously hurt based on something that happened in some small comedy club?

Richards in 2006. Who else?

[Dr Positivity]

Which actor's films would you pick if you could only watch movies containing one actor?

Would probably take De Niro (even though Woody Allen is my favorite director and acts in most), looking at his imdb it seems like every 2nd or 3rd film from the 70s to the mid 90s matters

[E-Balla]

Actually Jerry got Michael Richards on a ton of shows to apologize and when he was on Letterman with him he was getting angry at the crowd for laughing and telling them to take this seriously because it's a serious issue. If anyone seemed pissed off about what he said it was Jerry (IIRC they just started releasing Seinfeld on DVD around the time this happened). The issue now is colleges banning comedians and telling them what they can or can't say while performing. I've heard stories from comedians about having mics cut off mid set on campuses and not for speech but for topics.

I didn't know this. Interesting. Do you have links on comedians being cut off and banned like this? When I google it, the results are dominated by Seinfeld.

I wish I did. I've mostly heard a few stories from back when I used to listen to the Bill Burr and Joe Rogan podcasts but that was years ago. Here's Leno from 3 months ago though.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdpKXosSzl8[/youtube]

[sp6r=underrated]

Which actor's films would you pick if you could only watch movies containing one actor?

Would probably take De Niro (even though Woody Allen is my favorite director and acts in most), looking at his imdb it seems like every 2nd or 3rd film from the 70s to the mid 90s matters

I agree Allen is a poor choice. Even if you are a big fan of his movies he doesn't have great versatility. If you're limited to one actor's films that is important. De Niro is a great actor who has starred in a lot of classics. Do you think he bring enough to the table in the comedic department. Most of his comedies are really awful and merely consist of the audience being told to laugh at De Niro being in a comedy rather than their being actual humor.

I am still pondering my choice. I am limiting myself to major actors because if I considered character actors it would require way too much research.

[Dr Positivity]

Which actor's films would you pick if you could only watch movies containing one actor?

Would probably take De Niro (even though Woody Allen is my favorite director and acts in most), looking at his imdb it seems like every 2nd or 3rd film from the 70s to the mid 90s matters

I agree Allen is a poor choice. Even if you are a big fan of his movies he doesn't have great versatility. If you're limited to one actor's films that is important. De Niro is a great actor who has starred in a lot of classics. Do you think he bring enough to the table in the comedic department. Most of his comedies are really awful and merely consist of the audience being told to laugh at De Niro being in a comedy rather than their being actual humor.

I am still pondering my choice. I am limiting myself to major actors because if I considered character actors it would require way too much research.

Yea I am usually a defender of Allen's drama career as better than most who specialize in it, but half of the standouts and the ones that are the most different from the rest of his career are the ones he doesn't act in, so the point stands about versatility

De Niro has a few comedies I like in Midnight Run, Silver Linings Playbook, Stardust. Jackie Brown and American Hustle feel light. I haven't seen them in a while but Analyze This and Meet the Parents are fine I think. Not a true comedy but Brazil is a out there sci fi film that's also a nice change of pace film to have in an actor's repertoire.