503
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
503 points (95.8% liked)
The Onion
4708 readers
35 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I think I don't want to pay to see his show.
When a comedian says shit that bullies others and you're uncomfortable with that you're obligated to pay to see the show and laugh at all of the jokes. If you don't, you're guilty of the crime of "cancel culture" which means you're a terrible person for not watching things you don't like.
Don't you understand comedy? The audience doesn't decide what's funny, old comedians go on Joe Rogan and tell you what's funny. Then you must laugh at the jokes that have been decided are the funny by the comedy authorities. That's just how comedy works.
Laugh when you're told to laugh and nobody has to get hurt. Well except for trans people but the comedy authorities have decided that's funny and we must never question the comedy authorities. Comedy is a deadly serious business and it's more important than anything else in this world!
Cancel culture is when you cross the line of not enjoying something yourself over into attempting to stop others from making their own determination, by preventing them from experiencing it before they could do so. It is the most extreme form of censorship, not merely (helpfully?) labelling but attempting to drive out of existence the recipient. Similarly, free speech has exemptions for harm e.g. defamation.
To use an example, I have not heard Chappelle say something fully anti-trans, so much as "white trans people are still white, and police in Texas will allow them to continue to breathe, while black people can never be anything other than black". If the comedy gods or whatever have deemed that Chappelle must die, well, he seems to be okay with that, but he will never stop advocating for his own cause, which is that POC deserve to... (checks notes) breathe air.
That said, he may be slightly anti-trans in the sense that while he may choose to use others' preferred pronouns as a gesture of friendliness, that does not mean that those can rightfully be DEMANDED at will - our rights end where someone else's begins, and all that jazz. He has far too many stories how, as a black man in the entertainment business, too many things were TAKEN from him by force, to now enjoy having to give it up to a new minority that is getting all of the attention while black people... hey did you know that BREONNA TAYLOR WAS FUCKING SLEEPING!?
BTW I have never once listened to any show by Joe Rogan, ever, and I do not intend to start now:-) - ~~and you too should never listen to that racist SOB either~~ (that is the difference between opinion vs cancelling, imho:-D).
Dave Chappelle has been "cancelled" twice. If cancel culture was real it wouldn't be possible to be cancelled twice. He would've been cancelled once and we wouldn't hear about him again.
So the first time Dave Chappelle was cancelled, I thought "well I'm going to watch his comedy special and see what the fuss is all about". I mostly remember him whining about how bad it is his friend didn't get to host the Oscars. The most Hollywood problem ever. Yeah, that's something I can relate to, Dave.
The second time Dave Chapelle was cancelled, I was busy at the time so it was like "what happened there? whatever I got other shit to do" and kinda forget about it. Then a few days later I turned on Netflix, and you know how they show the top ten rated things on there sometimes? What did I see in that list? New Dave Chappelle comedy special. I thought "Hold on, how is this possible? I heard Dave Chappelle was cancelled!" How is it possible that Dave Chappelle have a new comedy special on Netflix on the same week he was cancelled? Not only that, how is it in the top ten rated things on Netflix?
Then I realized something. This motherfucker is playing us for fools. Yeah I got suckered the first time he got cancelled. I watched the special myself so I could judge for myself what it was about. Chappelle got an additional view from me. He got paid from the ratings he got from people like me wanting to find out why he was cancelled.
So I checked the autoplay preview thing for his comedy special the second time he got cancelled. There's some normal jokes, but then there's a beat... ominous music... "folks I have to talk to you all about something serious." FFS. I don't watch comedy specials so I can hear about what wealthy hollywood assholes think are serious issues. Just be funny, it's your fucking job, dude.
So no, I didn't watch Chappelle's comedy special the second time he was cancelled. But it was one of the top rated things on Netflix that week, so a lot of other people did.
So what does it mean to be "cancelled" nowadays? It used to be a show was cancelled and that was it, no more show. But now it means there is a still a show on. Does it mean people don't watch the show? Nope Chappelle got good ratings according to Netflix. So what does it mean to be cancelled?
It seems like being cancelled is when people on the internet criticizes a wealthy established hollywood asshole. To me this cancel culture thing seems to be more about silencing criticism. Though in Chappelle's case, it looks to me like he's gaming it. He sprinkles in a few jokes about an at risk group, gets "cancelled" for it and gets a bunch of people to watch his comedy special. He's done this twice now.
And I don't like this pattern. Getting "cancelled" makes him money. It seems more akin to those shit "prank" videos where someone does something that's complete shit, but even if a bunch of people hate-watch it they still make money from it. This isn't a good direction for comedy.
And it's really disappointing. A guy like Bill Maher playing the "cancel" culture grift I can understand. He's a talentless hack. But Dave Chappelle? That guy has actual talent. He doesn't need to sink to the level of Bill Maher.
But I guess Dave Chappelle has had too much money for too long. Whining about his friend not being able to host the oscars as if that's something the audience can relate to. He's in the Hollywood bubble now where they start thinking like the audience is the enemy. Like Bill Maher, he's probably going to rely more and more on para-social relationships with fans that trick themselves into thinking he's their friend while he rants about how the audience is bad. "Yeah, tell us more about how the audiences are bad! Me? No, I'm not the audience I'm his best friend (in my parasocial fantasies). Me and you against them!"
It's sad, Dave Chappelle has chosen to take the Bill Maher career path.
You have some points there, but there are some crucial (imho) details that I feel like you are just rushing headlong over, which matter. Even so, if you don't want to watch him, then don't - it's as simple as that:-). And I hope you feel free to share your opinion as well, and that we can politely & respectfully discuss that, if you want, as we are doing now:-).
For one, "being cancelled" is not the same as "an attempt was made to cancel him". Similarly, if he lost out on certain opportunities that he was slated to have - like an opportunity was already extended to him to do something (like host the oscars, or whatever) but then that offer was rescinded - then that would represent a partial rather than full kind of cancelling. In that case, they attempted to cancel him, and did partially manage it by cancelling one of his things, without fully ending either his life or his career. And btw, there was a lot of talk about how Chappelle was basically the first and at the time only person to ever survive such a concerted attempt at being cancelled, so there was likely a lot of fear at the time that he too would become yet another casualty, but then damn somehow he managed to overcome. That was not the expected outcome though - so it's like all those weather reporters saying that a hurricane or rain is 90% likely to hit an area, but then it does not. Oh well. Even so, was the preemptive warning wrong to have been said in the first place, under those conditions?
And yeah, in any case he's definitely working the system (or at least attempting to), in order to garner sympathy for himself. But that by itself does not mean that he is lying about the events in question? I am sorry that you feel betrayed but... why assume the absolute worst, especially since as you say, you haven't even listened to his side of it? Don't listen if you don't want to... but since you are talking about it, why not educate yourself about it first?
Bill Maher is indeed a talentless hack - but Chappelle is really good, and worth the investment (imho) to find out if he's still worth listening to. Steven Colbert you can tell has also become too powerful to be relatable to me anymore - he says things and people just instantly agree, and he's lost that genuineness that he used to have, it's so sad, a victim of his own success:-(. It is really difficult to maintain humility when you become successful, and I would say likely impossible to do alone, without help from others in their lives to keep them in check. Jon Stewart managed to do it, but nonetheless it's so rare.
Fwiw, I don't watch Chappelle b/c I can relate to him personally - I'm not black for one, nor famous, nor rich, etc. - but I enjoy him b/c (1) he's funny:-), and (2) he gives me insight into other aspects of life that otherwise I might not understand. e.g. his story about being a black straight man in Texas when a white trans person decided to harass him - THEY can call the cops, being "passing", and fully rest secure in the knowledge that they will survive the encounter. I said it before but daaaayum, BREONNA TAYLOR WAS SLEEPING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I like how he has the courage to say how "the other side" feels about the trans situation, and I like to think that even if I was trans that I would feel the same way, b/c it's helpful for the back-and-forth discussion process for someone to step up and articulate clearly what the core values are of each side - crucially with the caveat that so long as it is done respectfully. And how he says it is this: YOU can do whatever YOU want, but *I* should be allowed to do that too.
But what does "made an attempt to cancel him"? Expressing that you don't like someone? I think criticism is covered by freedom of speech.
If other people see someone saying "Dave Chappelle sucks now" and then thinks "yeah, I think this person is right, he does suck!" Is that wrong? I think that's just freedom of thought isn't it?
The whole anti-cancel culture thing seems to be "I don't like it when people say they don't like the things I like." But that's just a consequence of free speech isn't it? People are going to say things you disagree with.
TV shows have always been cancelled and it's always been for one of two reasons. 1) low ratings and 2) advertisers don't want to be associated with someone or something. Either way it's because of lack of revenue. It's business.
It's no different today. People stop watching something because they don't like it. Show gets cancelled.
So they question is, are there unacceptable reasons for not liking something? I don't know how to tell you this, but when I'm watching TV, I'll change the channel for all kinds of arbitrary reasons. I don't like that guy's hair cut click this looks boring click eh, it's ok but there's probably something else that's better on click. Everyone of these arbitrary decisions by the audience could result in a show getting low ratings and getting cancelled. But then it's like "I heard on the internet this guy is an asshole" suddenly we're all getting upset over how show business works?
Remember a long time ago Rock Hudson got cancelled for being gay. None of this is new. It's just more well documented. And the reasons for people not liking a celebrity has changed, but I think for the better. You're not going to be cancelled for being gay now, but maybe you'll get cancelled for being an asshole to other people.
And with streaming people are more willing to switch to something else because there's always a thousand other things you could be watching. And you can start those shows from the beginning whereas before with broadcast TV you would be starting a show from the middle when you change channels. So there's more competition and show business is more cut throat.
But at the end of the day it's solely a Hollywood problem. If we completely remove para-social relationships from the equation, then we can think of Hollywood as being a group of monkeys dancing on a stage. Someone in the audience says "that monkey on the left displeases me" and the monkey trainer takes the monkey off the stage and puts another one out there instead. Where is the issue with this? Well it sucks for the monkey I guess, but what impact does it have on society? Not all that much.
They aren't curing cancer out in Hollywood, they aren't actually doing anything important. If a show gets poor ratings because the didn't market it well and so it gets cancelled it's the exact same impact on society as when a show gets cancelled when it loses ratings because people stop watching because one of the stars said something stupid on the internet. In either scenario people that liked the show won't get more show, and that sucks I guess. But there will be another show put on TV in it's place, we'll still have entertainment, so it doesn't matter all that much does it?
But a lot of people in Hollywood are narcissists, and to a narcissist being famous makes them important. They speak like they're important people. And to a famous narcissist the thought of no longer being famous is the worst thing that could ever happen to them. But they're not important people. But they'll talk about cancel culture as if it is important because to a famous narcissist it is the most important thing to them. But for the rest of society it's not actually important. But those para-social relationship with the celebrities who are saying it's important issue leads some people in the audience to think it's important. But it really isn't. A show getting cancelled has the same impact on society regardless of the reason it's cancelled, and that impact to society isn't very much. They'll just put another show on, no big deal.
Of course there's this whole thing where entertainment and politics have somewhat merged into one thing. Celebrities are politicians and politicians are celebrities now. And that is something that is actually bad for society. People are being politically influenced by their para-social relationships with celebrities. Celebrities that live a weird Hollywood bubble far removed from the problems of the audience. They can exploit these para-social relationships to convince people prioritize issues that impact celebrities over issues that impact themselves.
I remember Bill Burr on a podcast whining about Gina Coranno being fired for saying stupid shit on the internet. When he was doing that, there were two million people that were unemployed. but since they were unemployed for reasons other than saying stupid shit on the internet the issue of Gina Coranno being fired was 2 million times more important than someone else being unemployed? Strange isn't it? And considering Hollywood people use the internet to promote the shows they're in, social media is part of the workplace isn't it? Saying stupid shit in the workplace gets non-hollywood people fired, but they don't need to behave professionally in the workplace like everyone else does? Why? Because they're famous and therefore important than everyone else?
Really the only problem with cancel culture is there's not enough of it. Hollywood people should know their place. We're the audience, we're paying them, we're more important than they are. Guy working as waiter in LA dreaming of becoming an actor someday is contributing more to society than if his dreams come true and he actually becomes an actor in a big movie.
They're just monkeys dancing for our amusement. We should consider them to be interchangeable. Because they are.
Once again some good points and yet... missing the most crucial details, imho. Yes, criticism is covered by free speech (except somehow when Dave Chappelle does it...?:-P). Yes, thinking that someone sucks is just freedom of speech. Yes changing the channel is 100% your "right" - except when TVs start changing to now not let you do so during an ad:-(.
The main difference between free speech and cancel culture... - well, first a digression:
Freedom of speech does not apply to television, radio, or social media in the same manner. Like if I broke into your house and screamed into your ear all night long "HEY, WAKE UP AND FEED YOUR CAT!" (especially if you don't have a cat!?:-P), that would be weird, right? I can scream that way inside my own house - caveat: so long as it somehow that does not negatively impact my neighboring community - but not as a guest elsewhere.
That's what makes censorship and even more so cancel culture so weird. Dave does not have the right to do anything at all, on e.g. Netflix - all he can do is make a show and try to sell it or give it away. And Netflix has the full "right" to not show his show, presuming that there is not stipulation somewhere in the contract between them saying otherwise.
But the main difference between free speech and cancel culture is when some asshat makes that decision for you - not even allowing you to see it in order to make up your own mind first. Watching a show and hitting the little downvote icon is NOT cancel culture - though brigading by getting thousands of people to go there and do specifically that WITHOUT FIRST WATCHING THE SHOW - would be an attempt to destroy at least the ratings of the show, in order to attempt to mess up the recommendations (whether successful or not). It is abuse of the idea of censorship, away from "hey he is doing something objectively wrong, or at least in violation of the commonly-accepted standards of conduct" into becoming, as you say "hey, this guy said something that I did not care for - let's DESTROY HIM".
Sometimes things get complicated b/c unintelligent people can act unintelligently at times - e.g. they may say that they want to do things, and call it e.g. "cancelling", but that's not necessarily what "cancelling" actually means. Turning the channel away from someone isn't "cancelling", it's just that you personally don't like it. Getting someone fired from their job is "cancelling". And btw, cancelling is not always "wrong" - getting someone fired who LEGIT NEEDS to be fired can be a good thing. So like a parent turning the channel away from Comedy Central whenever Chappelle comes on, specifically in order to block their kids from seeing it - that's a form of cancelling, at least within that household? And in that context, it might not be bad, if his form of comedy is deemed detrimental to the mental health of the children.
Where it crosses a line, imho, is when someone writes to the means of delivery - a TV station, or in this case Netflix - and tries to get him banned from being seen by everyone, even when some of us wanted to be able to see it. How does him being banned increase MY freedoms? Me being able to change the channel whenever I choose is my freedom, but someone else show-blocking me... is the exact opposite, is it not?
Especially when it has nothing at all to do with revenue - b/c the show hasn't even aired yet.
And ironically, that is Chappelle's whole schtick about the trans community: asking other people to use preferred pronounds = totally fine and I'll do that out of an abundance of friendliness, b/c that's just how I roll b/c I am awesome, but DEMANDING that I use it? That's where the line is crossed - shouldn't I also have some freedoms too, especially inside my own head?
As for it being relatable, please remember that this is a major issue happening all across America, in schools and workplace environments and everything else. Teachers are literally being fired for not using kids' preferred pronouns. I don't know why you are not seeing it where you are - if you are retired and don't watch much news or what - but it is EVERYWHERE lately. And now it has spread to books in libraries too, with some people legit and I mean fully literally burning books, yes with actual full-on fire. It is one thing to turn the page and simply choose to not read them, but it has graduated now to the "those should not exist at all" phase.
Also I disagree that Hollywood has zero impact on the rest of our culture - e.g. if someone made a vaccine against old age, but millions of people refused to take it, but then a TV show made the situation more relatable to people, Hollywood can have more impact than science itself, at least in the boots-on-the-ground sense. I guess it would be the E in STEM in that case, for Education I mean rather than merely Entertainment.
Comedy in particular causes us to question ourselves, and may impact e.g. voting behaviors, and thereby relates to real life. And all of that on top of the merging of Hollywood & political thinking.
I hope this helps you see what I see?
This is the old "Well you can't say X anymore" fallacy. You can. You just did. It's really "You can't say X anymore without people criticizing you for it." Yeah, that's just how the right to free speech works. Dave Chappelle has the right to say what he wants. Other people have the right to criticize him for it. People have a right to not watch his comedy special. Netflix has the right to decide to not buy what he's selling. Everyone has their rights, but why is it only some violation of rights when it negatively affects a celebrity? Why is that more of a concern than when Chappelle uses his rights in a way that negatively impacts Trans people? Why is he the one that's so special that no one is allowed to exercise their right in a way that negatively impacts him?
Why is this a problem? It's just a TV show, why does it matter?
Teachers are being fired for emotionally abusing children? That's what it is, right?
If you were a boy in school and your teacher was constantly calling you a sissy girl. When told to stop the teacher refuses, because "that's what I see that kid as, nothing but a sissy girl. It's MUH RIGHT to call anyone I want a sissy girl if that's how I think of them!" Would you think, oh well, that's cool, that's the kind of attitude someone entrusted with the development of children should have.
Come on, you know the teacher would be fired for calling a cis boy a girl. People have a right to think how they want, but when you're in a workplace you have to be a professional. If you can't behave like a professional in the workplace, you get fired. Just how things work.
It's sad to me how politics have eroded the concept of workplace professionalism. Used to be there was a rule about the three things you don't talk about at work: sex, religion, and politics. But now that's been labelled as wokeism or whatever, and people think they have the right to be an asshole in the workplace. Well if your employer has the right to fire you, then they can exercise that right. I have the right to walk into boss's office tomorrow and tell him he's an asshole. And I can do that and no one can stop me. But it's probably not a good career move, is it?
And then there's that time someone got all passive aggressive at me for referring to them as a they/them. Like, I'm sorry Pat, we're communicating over email, I don't know your pronouns unless you tell me. Until you indicate your pronouns I have no other option but to refer to you as a they/them. I understand you're in a red state, Pat, but pronouns are just words, either put them next to your name or be cool about people that have never met you in person calling you they/them. FFS I don't actually give a shit about anyone's gender when I'm at work but I do need to type something to someone else saying "Pat's account seems to be locked, could you reset ___ password?" I gotta put something in that blank, Pat. Help me fill in that blank, ok?
Ok sorry ofr the rant, but the politics around the pronouns are stupid to me. I work with emails and when someone puts their pronouns next to their name (especially when their name is ambiguous) I'm like alright, you're helping me out there. If there weren't so many stupid poiltics around this it would make things easier in the workplace for people that communicate over email. Makes things a lot less awkward, but dumb politics prevents people from doing something that's useful even in scenarios where there are no Trans people involved. It's like we're making things more difficult for everyone just to spite trans people.
Do people not have the right to write to Netflix? Does Netflix not have the right to decide what they want to put on their streaming service?
Once again, we're still in a place where Dave Chappelle's rights matter more than other people's rights. The thing about rights is, everyone has them. And many times people will exercise their rights in ways you don't approve of. To some people the way Dave Chappelle exercises hist rights crosses the line. For you, people writing to Netflix crossed the line. But these lines are all subjective.
So why do people think Dave Chappelle's rights takes precedence over other people's rights? It's just down to para-social behavior. People feeling like Dave Chappelle is their friend so they should stick up for him. If you don't have any trans people as friends then you don't feel like sticking up for them.
And there's the rub. It's why trans people get targeted. Not many trans people around so most people don't have any trans people as friends. The whole trans thing is confusing and uncomfortable. There's a surgery involved. There's a feeling that trans people are trying to trick us into being gay. If you had no morals and needed a convenient target of hatred to manipulate people, which group is the easiest target? It's trans people. It's always trans people. It's the group they always go after first.
Depending on the style of comedy, it can be a part of a comedian's job to understand culture. With Dave Chappelle's comedy style that's definitely the case. He's not doing Norm MacDonald style comedy where he's pretending to be the dumbest guy in the room while actually being the smartest guy in the room being meta with anyone knowing. He's not Conan O'Brien doing some silly things. His comedy is about commentary on culture and relating to the audience. If he can't understand the cultural impact of the things he's saying, he's being incompetent at his job.
This is not a good thing. How many people died because they listened to Joe Rogan and took horse de-wormer instead of the covid vaccine? We can't know the number but I'm certain that number is not zero. Yes, celebrities can affect positive change. But they can also create negative change. Having narcissists living in the Hollywood bubble be the arbiters of truth isn't actually a good thing for society. At one time guys like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite were the arbiters of truth. Now some coked up actor at an orgy with underage boys mashes 280 characters into their iPhone is what determines what's real for us now. While Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite may have gotten a few things wrong in their careers, I don't think what we have now is an improvement.
Also not a good thing. Two million people unemployed and Bill Burr thinks the most important issue is one Hollywood person losing her job. Dave Chappelle thinks his friend not getting to host the Oscars is an important issue. These guys live in a different world from us. They don't understand what issues issues are important. All they accomplish is making people think the things that impact them are important. Which is a distraction.
In the end of it all there's nothing anyone can do about cancel culture. You can't strap people down and force them to watch things they don't like ala Clockwork Orange. Popular people will be on TV and unpopular people won't be. That's just show business. The internet offers celebrities new ways to say and do things that will make them unpopular. When that happens you won't see them on TV anymore because people don't want someone they don't like on their TV screens.
The problem is when you have politicians talking about doing something cultural changes because a celebrity convinced people that a cultural shift is a poltical problem that government should be involved in. Politicians running on anti-woke (whatever that means) cultural issues is a very bad thing. The government shouldn't be regulating cultural norms and it feels like that' where things are headed. And Hollywood assholes ranting on podcasts making people feel like nothing burgers like cancel culture being major problems just puts fuel on that fire.
I wish we could go back to the days when if a comedian bombed, the only thing they could do was improve their material. Now it's like they have a power over the audience to make people think their weak material is good and if the audience isn't laughing it's because the audience is wrong. It's all backwards.
Make comedy funny again.
(Btw someone already downvoted you and I just wanted to be clear that it was not me)
You are kinda all over the map here - you jumped from hollywood has zero impact on us to how they are trying to kill us. I get it, both are true, in differing ways, but it points to how complex these topics are (e.g. Hollywood has little direct effects on us, and some people in it are highly irresponsible - also, Joe Rogan is from Austin Texas not Hollywood California, but that's not terribly relevant, just saying that we could get lost in all the little "details" for days on end!:-P).
One simplifying rule: Right or Wrong, the biggest thing in life, at least as it relates to Freedom, seems to me to be the notion of "consent". e.g. Hitler/Putin/whoever invades countries: if they somehow wanted that (spank me hardy Nazi daddy) then it's all cool, but on the off-chance that it was nonconsensual, then it is NOT COOL.
If Netflix were to drop Chappelle b/c he's not funny, then that's their choice. But if they drop him b/c one segment of society has an enormous amount of power, especially in proportion to their numbers, then that is "not fair". Why can't *I* watch Chappelle, if I want to, just b/c "they" say that I can't? That's not freedom, and I might have an opinion on that. On the other hand, maybe my opinion is undeserved? Like if Chappelle were to advocate violence against America, that should get him cancelled, or if he were to advocate that we become actual, literal Nazis (even without the urgent and direct call to the actual violence), then that too should get him cancelled. But saying that he is perpetuating "violence" against trans people...
On this point I am willing to be convinced, bc I haven't managed to come to a firm stance here yet. Although you haven't even watched his special so you could not be the one to do that for me in any case. On its face though it seems absurd to me - not wanting to call someone by a preferred pronoun is not the same thing as "violence". And to be clear, *I* myself will call people by their preferred pronoun, plus I also will always use "they" if it is unknown, but even so I do appreciate his insight there, that consent of all the parties involved should matter. So especially if someone starts the school year with one pronoun and then changes it midway through, it makes sense that it may get difficult to always remember to switch, especially if the person still presents as the other gender (e.g. a man with a deep voice now calling herself a woman - yet still has a deep voice?). I'm saying that it's confusing, and it's NEW.
More to the point, Chappelle barely talks about trans people at all (edit: used to, before the attempt to cancel him over it), except to point out the extreme unfairness of it all. Black people have been trying to be called "people" for HUNDREDS OF YEARS, but then homosexual white men advocate for their chosen lifestyle and suddenly in ONE DECADE win a Supreme Court that makes it legal to get married? And now trans people are coming up, and even though as you say they are so rare that most of us have never even so much as MET one before (I had lots of gay friends - both men & women, and most of the people I become friends with online seem to be homosexual men, I think b/c of the sensitivity aspect that allows us to enjoy talking with one another - but even so I have never met a single trans person in my entire lifetime that I know of), and yet despite that, they instantly get a seat at the table? Suddenly we all have to use whatever pronouns they want? As if they are... "people"? Well, they are, but also: BREONNA TAYLOR WAS SLEEPING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! His point seems to me to be: why can't black people be treated the same way - as "people"? - like, whenever a trans person is harmed, people rise up in arms and defend them, but except trans, do that for black? He has this wonderful story about being called into HR and told never to say the "F-a-."(-o-t) word again. He agrees, but asks: "why not", especially when he can use the N- word with impunity? The response is that he is not one of them. HIS response in turn is that well, he isn't an N- word either!?!?!?!:-P
Also, Chappelle has advanced civil rights for his entire lifetime, by breaking into what was previously mostly-white or mostly-black spaces, and bringing audiences together from both races that enjoy his brand. But now the newest minority group has the gall to tell him the equivalent of "thanks bitch-ass n-word, but you can go back out into the fields now, we got this". He feels sleighted, he feels ignored, he feels... much like the trans people must feel, except instead of displaying sensitivity, both of those sides for whatever reason cannot seem to get along.
And then here we are, talking about what is going on in Hollywood, as if it is important:-). But the whole country is getting up in arms over all of this - to the point of checking people's literal genitals, bathrooms, in sports, and on and on. Both sides are pushing on this hot-button topic: either for or against, it's YUGE. What I get from Dave's comedy is that if we put even 1% of that energy and attention into solving racism, then it would be over by the end of the day tomorrow. Right or Wrong (the issue did not arise in just one day hence will not be solved in one either), ... he has a point? White people have, once again, appropriated civil rights language and processes, and in so doing managed to entirely ignore the oppression of black people. Like, I don't know if refusing to use preferred pronouns is a form of "violence" (I cannot imagine that it feels very nice, but is that word too extreme?), but what is happening all across the nation to black people - e.g. in Ferguson MO - is ACTUAL VIOLENCE. And it would be nice if BOTH issues were to receive attention, although at the time a lot of his specials were coming out (before BLM, before the situation with Floyd was caught on camera), trans were getting nearly all of the attention while black people little to none, at least, on the larger scale. Thankfully, that has changed somewhat. Except... has it though?
(Btw I don't care about internet points so don't worry about it)
I think it sounds all over the place because I recognize that Hollywood is something that's a significant thing in our society BUT I don't think it should be.
Seems like a downward spiral to me. So he's making more and more of his routine based not on making the funniest jokes possible, he's making his routine about spite. Sorry I don't find spiteful people all that funny.
I think there's too much focus on whether or not Dave Chappelle has a right to say what he's saying that there isn't enough consideration given to whether or not what he's doing is actually right. He's bullying people in his show. Creating a culture where it's normalized to denigrate people that are already has a big target on them.
While everyone has a right to say something that is wrong, trying to keep the discussion focused only on the right to say something is just avoiding the fact that Chappelle is in the wrong here.
I love Norm MacDonald's (RIP) take on this. Something like "yeah I might be just joking around about trans people but then someone takes it the wrong way and beats the shit out of a trans person." Norm was one of the most fearless comedian of all time but he stopped making trans jokes. Not because he was afraid of being cancelled (it's Norm, c'mon) but because he understood that an old joke isn't as important as someone getting the shit kicked out of them. Even if there's only a possibility of that happening is it worth it? It's just entertainment, it's not really worth that much.
Sometimes jokes just expire. Old jokes that just aren't funny anymore just have to be retired.
So I was a teenager when the movie Ace Ventura Pet Detective came out. Prime demographic for that movie. At the end of the movie there are a lot of trans jokes. I laughed at these jokes. But in the thirty years since that movie came out, I'd like to think I learned a few things. One of the things I've learned in the decades since seeing that movie was that trans people are people. Those jokes were mean spirited. And if I see that movie again, the ending only reminds of what a stupid shit I was when I was a teenager. I'd be cringing too hard to be capable of laughing at those jokes. So I'll probably not be watching Ace Ventura again because I know the cringe that'll be having at the end of the movie. Cancelled.
In my town many years before I was born there were minstrel shows. You know shows, where guys put on blackface and pranced around like fools. My parent's generation had a discussion about this one time. People would pack up the kids go to these shows and have a good time. But then at some point people realized "wait this is super racist." and everyone started going to the shows. So the people that did the shows made some changes. No more black face. From that point forward it just be a show with clowns. Same basic show, but no more blackface. You know what happened? Nobody went. People just didn't feel good about buying tickets, packing up the kids and going to the show even after the blackface element was removed. When it's an entertainment product, it really doesn't take all that much to decide "nah I'm not going to make effort to go to something I don't feel completely good about." The show was shut down permanently. Cancelled.
Culture changes, what was funny in the past is no longer funny now. So why is Dave Chappelle still making trans jokes 30 years after Ace Ventura? Is there a link there to the anti-trans politics happening now?
Dave Chappelle isn't worth watching now. If Netflix doesn't want their brand associated with Chappelle's downward spiral into bigotry (which isn't funny to a lot of people), they have the right to disassociate themselves from him. He has a right to say what he wants to say, but there is no right to have a comedy special on Netflix. If that's the case, I want to star in a comedy special on Netflix, I think I'm a funny guy. If Netflix denies me a comedy special, will you be angry about them denying me my rights?
Or is it because Dave Chappelle is famous he has the right to be on Netflix? And we're back to that para-social relationship with celebrities that makes people feel they deserve special treatment and they have the right to things we don't have a right to.
Dave Chappelle has the right to say what he wants even when he's wrong. But that doesn't mean he isn't wrong. Netflix has the right to cancel his show, it's their streaming site. People have the right to petition Netflix to cancel Chappelle.
None of this would've happened if Chappelle had a better awareness of the shifts in cultural norms. Which is part of his job. He didn't do his job very well, and anyone
And is Dave Chappelle making things better? Perhaps it's better for Netflix to stop showing his specials until people settle down a little?
Also it's not quite a both sides kind of thing. One side wants to take away people's right to live their lives how they want. The other side wants everyone to continue to have that right. It's not so much pushing the issue, it's more like pushing back against people that want to take away rights from a group that's a convenient target. Trans people have been around my whole life. Why all of a sudden all this urgency about this? Could it be something fabricated by people that want to take away rights, and this happens to be the group that a lot of people would tolerate losing rights? Call me paranoid, but I don't know if the people that want to take away the rights of one group of people will stop there.
And these are actual rights. not Hollywood "rights" which seem to be all about the "right" of famous narcissists to remain famous even when people don't like them anymore. Don't worry so much about Chappelle, he's a millionaire, he'll be fine. Trans people though... I'm not sure if they'll be fine if things keep going the way they are.
One thing that bugs me: when Jon Stewart was accused of making fun of trans people, he had the grace and class to apologize. e.g. he made a joke one time about a "tranny prostitute", and he indicated that he was sorry, and realizes now that it was wrong - people should never "punch down".
The thing with Chappelle is that as a black man, it is not clear that has ever "punched down"? Even so, he probably should have risen to the occasion and just apologized. I think he's correct in what he's saying, though profits off of saying it offensively so does that. Which still advances the cause of getting the issues discussed more broadly in society, but also rankles a bit - a role that he seems okay with, and might even be necessary, though not one that we should ever aspire to ourselves. He at least is smart enough to handle walking that line, and deal with whatever consequences may come.
Also, oddly enough, whether it's due to Chappelle's challenges or whatever, I hear some of the same talk coming from actual LGBTQ comedians? e.g., there is a difference b/t "sex" and "gender" - like if a big dude walks up to you, with a beard and a deep voice, and says that they are a woman, obviously they must be referring to the latter rather than former, but it's not always so easy to tell otherwise.
Though Chappelle is saying that from the "outside", while there are other dicussions happening from the "inside", so he still gets razed b/c he shouldn't be the one saying it, even if they are identical words. Context matters. Also, he says it in an insensitive manner, b/c that too is his style of reaching out to poor, less educated people.
And all of this is complicated still further by the actions of the other side - e.g. there was some controversy about how employees of Netflix tried to force their way into director-level meetings about the subject, and they were fired. Was that b/c they were trans? Not... entirely, or even mostly - they were fired b/c they were acting entitled and ignoring the standards of professional behavior. Though there was a huge outcry b/c how dare Netflix fire people "for being trans". (Also relevant, their being trans themselves gave them sympathy, which lead to why they acted the way that they did, feeling personally impacted).
Remember though, "cancelling" isn't simply choosing not to go to a show anymore - that's your personal choice, and it does not rise to "cancelling" until something like a gang of bikers blocks all the roadways leading into the show. The show people paid money for the venue, did the advertising, rented the space, got the permits, travelled, using their gasoline, and on and on it goes - and some of the audience members likewise wanted to come, but something in-between the seller and the buyer blocked them, "cancelling" the show, setting themselves up as the moral authority to show-block the will of all of the other parties. i.e., they acted as Karens, exactly in the same manner as those states that are trying to block medical care to trans people, but on the other side. Whenever you set yourself up to be the moral authority of a subject, different expectations begin to be applied to a "leader" rather than a mere participant.
Here's an interesting article on it: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/06/1050313989/netflix-dave-chappelle-cancel-culture-trans-employees:
So... there are problems and imperfect steps taken by all sides of this matter. And it does not help that trans people seem like they could care less about issues faced by black people - they just want theirs, and that's all. It would help if we all could push just for "civil rights" and have that be inclusive of ALL, but b/c of the extremely low numbers, plus the extreme severity of the issues faced by black people, if that were to happen then trans people would not have gotten a fraction of the attention that has been awarded there in the past (if effort was put in according to that principle "to each according to their need"). Again, words may hurt people's feelings but... you know what I am going to say don't you... BREONNA TAYLOR WAS SLEEPING!!!!! Those are not at the same level at all.
It's not like there's a hierarchy of which group is worse off than the other. Chappelle is a multi-milliionaire with Netflix specials. Money = power, and he's got a lot of money. So he has a lot more power than the people he's attacking. That's punching down. If a trans person was as wealthy and well established as Dave Chappelle and started talking shit about black people, it would be also be punching down. Money has a big part to play in this, as it does in most aspects of our society.
It's generally accepted that it's fine for members of a group to talk about their own group. Within reason, of course. Nobody is upset if Dave Chappelle makes commentary on the black community.
I dunno. Probably just ask. Generally if you're respectful to others you're not going to have problems when there's confusion.
Yup. That's how it works on lots of things. If I say "there are a lot of problems with the US" do those words have different meaning if it's an American saying it vs. if a non-American says it? If it's an American saying it, it's an invitation to discuss the problems of the country with a peer. If a non-Amercan says it, It comes off as a little judgemental doesn't it?
Yeah ultimately companies are all about making money. I always laugh when people say things like Disney is woke. Or Hasbro is woke for how they market Potato heads. Or the Dr. Seuss Company is woke for pulling some books. There's actually something these companies have in common. They all make products directed at young people. They've done market research and they decide things based on what will make them money.
Disney fired Gina Corano so that Millenials would feel comfortable watching the next season of Mandorian with their kids. It was important for those kids to see what Mando's new spaceship looked like so they would want that toy for Christmas. Because that's what Disney really cares about: money.
It may shock you to learn that there are actually black trans people.
Agree completely. But consider that those that are against this may be taking a divide and conquer approach. Pit various minority groups against one another so people can't unite in a common cause for rights for everyone. Trans people are always the group that people using this approach go after first. Like I say, they're a very small group, not a lot of people have trans friends, people feel confused and uncomfortable about trans people. So it's easy to isolate them and take away their rights. But people that are all about taking away people's rights usually don't stop with just trans people.
If we want people to unite for the common interest of civil rights for everyone, then is Dave Chappelle helping in that cause?
The Kremlin doesn't pay you enough.
The answer to that depends: is he correct? Even so, it does not help that he was being crass. Bc of the latter, even if trans people themselves end up coming to the same endpoint, they seem unlikely to thank him? Then again, he was not advocating for trans people, he was advocating for black, at which point it seems helpful how he pointed out what the the prioritization should be: danger to life first, then secondary concerns.
Then you'd hate Anthony Jeselnik
I LOVE Anthony Jeselnik - he's amazing, and I would pay to see him. I daresay that he's one of my personal favorites.
The difference is consent - if I pay to see him, then I want it, while if someone walks up to me (like at school) and says the identical words, that's the difference.
I would pay to see him as well but what the article insinuates is that "pushing boundaries with comedy" is just bullying with extra steps, which I heavily disagree with. Yes there's a time and a place for it but something like this makes me feel like they're taking a jab at harsher comedy as a whole.
That's not what I took from it at all. For one it's The Onion community, so I presumed that this was satire from the start (even though I've never heard of this particular site before) and more importantly whereas Anthony Jeselnik is a master of his craft, the boy in the story seems portrayed as just a bully who is using whatever justification/excuse he can to avoid consequences for his actions? Hence by Occam's Razor I went with the latter rather than the former.
Fwiw, I agree with you insofar as that comedy needs special exemptions from the traditional rules of society bc otherwise it simply cannot be as effective in its job, in holding up a mirror to poke fun at society as a whole and thereby help us become better, plus do so with a smile on our faces:-).
But walking up to someone and straight up calling them a "cunt" - that's not comedy. On the other hand, paying someone to do exactly that? Now that's comedy!:-P
Anthony Jeselnik tells this joke: a blind guy walks up to him after the show, saying that he wants to hear more jokes making fun of blind people. Anthony goes, "You want to hear a blind joke? Okay here's one:", then just walks away. Classic! :-P
Sure but The Onion satire always comes with a political message lightly baked into the surface. It seems more likely to me that they're making comments about comedy in general and how comics who tell harsh or offensive jokes are just elementary school bullies playing it off as a joke. I've never heard a kid use the phrase "pushing boundaries with my comedy" whereas that's definitely something a standup comic would say.
That's why the article rubbed me the wrong way. I still enjoy Dave Chappelle, Anthony, and comics who dare say unpopular shit through the lens of comedy. The Onion seems to disagree.
Maybe, but then again if Chappelle is allowed to use edgy humor (and in my book, he always is!:-P), then so too is The Onion.
They might even be doing it purely for the joke? As in whatever sounds most funny? I don't read so much of The Onion anymore - it's always full of ads and it's been funny for decades but it's always pretty much the same, just stating absurd things purely for the sake of absurdity, so... I get it, and move on. :-P
Roasting is always a staple of comedy though, and if you step up onto the big stage, then you become fair game - so long as it is respectfully delivered (like, said in someone's own act, not coming over to the recipient's act and interrupting it, at least not without permission!:-P). So I presume that Chappelle and others can take care of themselves:-). The only force that could stop me from listening to Chappelle is Chappelle himself, and he shows no signs of that - he's so insightful! (like about trans people: if you are trans in Texas, then you are "passing", which still ain't black! there is nothing whatsoever that Chappelle can do about his own skin color, which is a sobering reminder that not all civil rights are equal - some are are deadly as literal life & death!)
Anyway, I did detect an undercurrent of a subversive message, but I thought it was the absurdity of young (white, especially wealthy) kids getting away with practically murder in today's school environments. Also it has notes similar to Trump's never getting anything pinned onto him, despite "telling it like it is" (except we know that that is not "how it is"). That kid is NOT doing comedy though, hence I did not go so far as to extend the hidden thoughts into the realm of comedy itself. Though I do not know that site "Reductress", so maybe, if that's a common theme there? I am just saying that it sounded more to me that he repeated a phrase that he heard often, without properly applying it to his own particular situation (again, using it as a "justification" rather than a "reason"), and the absurdity is not how a young kid behaves - b/c that's understandable!:-P - but how the adults go along with it rather than push back, which is not!?!?