^But lots of comics admit using shock value to stir up the audience. Mainly because comics have this whole crowd rapport, part of which involves ways to rile folks. Carlin, Hicks, Rickles, Kinison, and plenty of contemporary out-of-tempo guys like Rogan, Izzard, Mohr, Chappelle, Silverman, Stanhope, Tosh. Even acts like like Maron. Even John Oliver! And I want to emphasize that I'm not extrapolating shit. This is straight up. Every now and again you get a blowhard who categorizes his shock value as 'truth', claiming that label doesn't come from his process but the dumbed down audiences who can't handle the real world coming at them, but with rare exceptions (Pryor, Hicks) the comedian is exploring taboos for the sake of exploring taboos. Which I think is a totally valid reason to explore taboos, and for those of us who haven't been shot, imprisoned or prostituted, it's the only reason we really have. Crowd rapport is part of their craft, and I think negative crowds are an even bigger part of their foundations considering how often upcomers have to bomb before they find their crowds. It's one thing not to find Cook funny, but I don't know if his process is that different from other comedians. He hasn't been doing stand up for awhile. I think he has been playing around with it a year on now, but he took a big break and this was a recorded improvisation at a club (as other schmoes have pointed out).
All of which is my roundabout way of saying nuh uh dane cook is too funny! stupidface!
I know, I know.