I could say that based on my observations of his comedy. I enjoy observational comedy, but not observations of ignorance. When he goes on his “Why do…” rants, most of those I know the answer to off the top of my head, and he could to, if he stopped and thought about it.
I’ll admit that, as a left handed american, I got a chuckle about his joke about left handedness. But in my opinion, that was his best joke, and it’s gone downhill ever since.
And he didn’t even bring up that sinister means left handed, dexterous means right handed, and ambidextrous means having two right hands. That would have improved his joke by 134.6%.
Not even a complaint about spiral notebooks or three ring binders? Meh.
Doesn’t matter if she’s a Dog Groomer. John said he respects his wife’s ability, Jerry who has never met her makes a blanket statement about all women. John says Jerry’s wrong. Jerry insists for the ‘joke’. He’s being rude for some, ‘let’s shit talk our wives’ comedy bit on a recorded program.
I think Jerry was just annoyed the entire episode was an errand for John’s wife.
Seinfeld’s best routines appear regularly on comedy radio and hold their own against more modern comics. Seinfeld never went in for politics or dirty jokes. I don’t think he wanted to be edgy. And his stand-up is second fiddle to what remains a nearly perfect TV show.
But I didn’t see all his Comedians Getting Coffee shows (the first season or two) or podcast appearances. There are guys I like better for stand-up, including Seinfeld’s hero Rodney Dangerfield who remains a legend.
I wish someone could explain it to me, and I’m 64. I heard it on the radio for the first time last night, and just did not get it. The rest of the bit was pretty amusing; at least I recall laughing, but I honestly can’t remember any specific jokes. Just the “gay French king.” I’m not gonna assert any causal relationship, but it makes ya wonder, right?
There is at the heart of the joke a funny observation; but it’s fucked up by lazy stereotypes.
Imagine a king who’s perfectly entitled and thinks he’s the manifestation of the divine. He gestures slowly, beneficently, eyes half-lidded, fingertips down, at a crowd, almost like he’s stroking a cat.
Imagine someone reading Facebook on his phone. He gestures slowly, eyes half-lidded, fingertips down, scrolling the feed, almost like he’s stroking a cat.
Comparing that specific gesture–the king’s beneficent wave to the reader’s slow scroll–could be funny. I can see it in my mind, and sure, there’s a joke to be had there.
Now imagine a 1980s stereotype of a gay man. He gestures with a limp wrist! Remember how funny that was? And you know how the king in the previous example was waving in a way that meant his wrist was bent? HAW HAW HAW!
That’s my best understanding of what Seinfeld was going for, anyway. The potential of the joke is muddied, made confusing and obnoxious, by the inclusion of a past-its-expiration-date stereotype of gay men.
Edit: After all that, I found the clip. Never mind, I don’t know what the hell he was going for.
Yeah, the “gay French king” reference is clearly a conflation of two “lazy wrist flick gesture” stereotypes. If he’d used some other adjective with “French king” it would have made a mildly amusing joke-in-passing but no, he hadta get the whole gay “limp wrist” thing in there, which made it tacky. It’s not a “burn him at the stake” level offense but it deserves an eyeroll and possibly a single “tsk”.
FYI, I remember that and it was a little bit scandalous at the time. But she was legal and her parents were aware of the relationship and approved.
I did some work for this woman and her family several years after she dated Jerry. She was married to an investment banker from an extremely wealthy family ( Google tells me she has since divorced ) and she owns a successful business. She does not appear to have been damaged by the episode.
Or she was. Or only a bit. Who knows what lies in people’s hearts? She was a legal adult, and you have to draw the line somewhere, and she was above it. It wasn’t my bag of worms, but it’s their lives.
WTF is wrong with “cancel culture” anyway? If a RW wants to speak on campus and the students organize to stop it, that is an expression of their free-speech rights, not a violation of the speaker’s.
We don’t know her heart, sure. But we do know she’s not said anything about being harmed by it. She’s not expressed that anything bad happened.
And, sure, that’s not proof that nothing happened. Unfortunately, there can be negative consequences for saying anything. But without any evidence that there’s a problem, we pretty much have to assume the default that there wasn’t.
That’s my take, anyways. I don’t just draw a line at what is legal. There are sometimes actions that are technically legal but still harmful. But, as you say, it’s their lives, not mine, and it’s not my place to say something is wrong if all involved are okay with it. All I can do is listen when they tell me there is a problem.