In the cross talk sketch of fast food culture, which specific link lines should not appear or be debatable?

This answer is purely objective to things rather than people.

In the sketch of renting a house upstairs to practice singing, fighting for an object and quarreling with the old lady, there is a so-called language funny burden line about "it takes more than 10 thousand to order boils ... there is a face on boils". From the point of view that it is not easy to make jokes as much as possible, I sincerely respect the creators and performers; I prefer to give an actor a kind of respect and entertain the audience with a kind of "defect". This "defect" is not his own defect, nor is it his closeness to others (except those who go beyond the "limit" and scold those who are close to others). However, from the perspective of empathy in creation and performance, this line, which makes people have a "knife" in their hearts every time they read it, does have a bottom line beyond language, which violates the artistic principle that many old artists have always insisted on not making fun of other people's physical defects. This is what I sincerely pointed out when I saw the sketch broadcast by CCTV Variety Channel ten days ago and found that the lines still existed.

Also, I can't remember clearly. It seems that in the works of famous actors, there is a line that the son is called Newton, and in Occupy a Seat, there is a line that the son is called Addison (or even if it is just a homonym). Perhaps in western names, there are indeed many people who have such duplicate names; In the eyes of people familiar with foreign languages, there may be no strangeness. But it is undeniable that in the impression of most ordinary people, they are only familiar with or most familiar with this famous founder of classical mechanics and the famous world invention king. Respecting knowledge and intellectuals regardless of nationality are also cultural genes in China people's psychological understanding. However, even if there is no intention to scratch the ball or "circle" at all, it can be said that in the usual inertial impression of most ordinary people, it is inevitable that people will not feel that they have not completely avoided some suspicion of being entertaining and blaspheming famous intellectuals. If a considerable number of foreigners feel this way, the disadvantages of this doubt will be more obvious. This should not be picky, right? what do you think?

Based on temporary memory, I only give these two examples to express my views. thank you

I always think that it is immoral to ignore the inner feelings of a small number of people (although I am not) in order to entertain most people for a while, at least the artistic style is not rigorous enough. What's more, if you ask those who laugh: If his or her relatives or children have related defects, should he or she still laugh or laugh? I'm afraid it's just that it's easy to ignore other people's "diseases"! In short, it is a kind of defective behavior that does not adhere to the principle of bottom line.

In the previous paragraph, there were many problems in discussing the anti-three customs. I saw that there were indeed many remarks that it was good to amuse the public. It is also said that, regardless of elegant music or pop music, it is the audience with poor quality who only care about "music". I really don't agree with the former. If someone saw a yellow joke that shouldn't have appeared in the theater and ignored it at that time, but suddenly thought that their underage children would be affected by seeing the same joke in another place or in the media, would their laughter relax? As for the quality of the audience, it is always uneven. The key point is that once public figures perform in public, they are naturally endowed with the responsibility and influence to guide public thoughts and lead the fashion of the times. Never say that seriousness is seriousness, and liveliness is liveliness. The structure of people's spiritual world is a whole, and I'm afraid many people can't tell it clearly, or it's hard to tell it clearly. This passage is just a personal view on the problem of anti-three customs, which has deviated from the topic-add this sentence.