Dave Chappelle's Netflix show

Has he? I haven't followed him over the years, but I didn't get that impression in hearing other people talk about him. He's never seemed to care about hurting feelings in the broad sense.

"The truth is simpler, and more interesting. Chappelle had, essentially, become uncomfortable with playing a black fool for white audiences. Upon his return from Africa, he told Oprah Winfrey a revealing anecdote: While Chappelle acted out a sketch that featured him as a pixie in blackface, he heard a white crew member laughing a little too hard. This was, apparently, the galvanizing moment that caused Chappelle to reassess the intent of his comedy, and the kind of laughs he was giving his audience. As he told Time, “I want to make sure I’m dancing and not shuffling.”"

Changed his comedy because he realised it was feeding into white racism. Recognised the problems with making certain kinds of jokes.

Just isn't extending that analysis and courtesy to trans people.
 
This is a common criticism of people who are actually criticising the show. I've seen it made a lot recently (and generally whenever something arguably offensive gets released and is popular).

It doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. Among the people who work at Netflix who are criticising the special most definitely have seen the special. So all you're doing here is being dismissive of valid criticism by suggesting the people who made it don't know what they're talking about it.
This is a common criticism by people who haven't seen the show when told that people who criticize the show haven't seen the show.

What possible evidence do you have that the people who work at Netflix & also walked out to engage in the protest, all dozens of them total for the whole "protest", which included people who don't work at Netflix (Netflix employs over 9,400 people), actually watched the show in question?
 
Last edited:
I found the previous one pretty hilarious, this one pretty preachy and butthurt....
 
He was on stage performing stand up. A part of his shtick has always been incorporating social issue related real life events into his routine. He has been doing this for decades, and using that energy towards in the end getting laughs. That's what he does.

In this case he included a bit about a death of a friend. I'm surprised he went there, but not for the same reasons as you.

In the end, you can't expect academically passable lectures during a comedy special. That seems unreasonable. If you go to a comedy club to see stand up you have to prepare yourself for the absurd and potentially offensive being thrown at the audience from unexpected directions. Jim Gaffigan will not give you good nutritional advice. It's an act - entertainment - designed to make you laugh. Do not go home and eat 20 pounds of bacon.
Who said he had to make academically-passable lectures? Who made that claim?

Anyone who has a platform has an obligation to that platform. It's why we have forum rules. It's why we separate science from nonsense. The fact of something being a joke or not doesn't excuse any inaccuracies in the subject material. There's a difference between satire and saying, without any follow-up or related joke, "the Westboro Baptist Church are right". Right?

So unless you can demonstrate how he used his support of JKR to make a joke at her expense, that's not him being a comedian. Which invalidates this entire tangent because your entire counterargument was "he's just being a comedian".

Arwon pointed out the disparity pretty nicely. More than once. Drakle did too I think. Chapelle has learned to modify his humour based on lessons learned in the past. The fact he is refusing to do so exclusively with trans people suggests that they're an outlier for some reason. There will be a reason. It's not magic. It's a demonstrable lack of consistency.

Still waiting for your thoughts on the Carlin video, by the by.

This is a common criticism by people who haven't seen the show when told that people who criticize the show haven't seen the show.
I see we're back in the playground :D

There are people criticising the show who have seen it. I'm sorry this doesn't fit your preconceived narrative. I'd ask why, but you're being rather childish about it so far.
What possible evidence do you have that the people who work at Netflix & also walked out to engage in the protest, all dozens of them total for the whole "protest", which included people who don't work at Netflix (Netflix employs over 9,400 people), actually watched the show in question?
What evidence do you have they don't? It's a stupid question. So long as one of them has, their criticism is valid. What's more likely, eh? That none of them have, or at least one of them have?

I'm sure it's convenient for you to insist that everyone must sit down and give Netflix the view time for the episode (thus increasing its success metrics), but it's hardly a requirement. Unless you can argue that every single article on the topic is misquoting Chapelle, any article that fairly quotes him is perfectly fine for people to form an opinion about.

And, of course, just to repeat myself: criticism has come from people that have watched it. You can ignore it or undermine it if you want, but I'm going to have to ask: why?
 
Last edited:
Required Reading
 
Last edited:
Aggressive comedians are a thing in some countries, but not all. I doubt there was much of that here, and when there was it was strictly political satire/polemic. Generally a comedian can be reduced to a clown very easily, if there's no popular culture that propels them to icon status.
I suppose it's not entirely unrelated to how few famous comedy writers there were in ancient Greece. I can only think of two (Aristophanes and Menander), while Lucian of Samosata was a satirist (and is relatively high-brow).

If one has enough talent, and a decent personality, they can become an icon for comedy in the US or similar. But I don't agree that it makes sense for them to be identified as serious political (or otherwise) thinkers. Probably the greatest reason they rise to such a position is that their antagonists are also media personalities and non-serious/legends in their own mind.
 
Anyone else remember the New York Times article about neo-pronouns like bun/bunself?

A neopronoun can also be a so-called “noun-self pronoun,” in which a pre-existing word is drafted into use as a pronoun. Noun-self pronouns can refer to animals — so your pronouns can be “bun/bunself” and “kitten/kittenself.” Others refer to fantasy characters — “vamp/vampself,” “prin/cess/princesself,” “fae/faer/faeself” — or even just common slang, like “Innit/Innits/Innitself.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/style/neopronouns-nonbinary-explainer.html
 
This reminds me of the socially conservative people behind the anti porn and parental warnings movements. Momma's always building those walls. I read Chappelle's explanation about why he changed his routine, apparently he got the impression he played into negative stereotypes because the wrong people thought he was funny. I think...

There was an incident with a crew man who laughed at something Dave did in a skit that resulted in a moment of insight and enlightenment. Everybody stereotypes, thats how our brains work. Everything in tidy boxes waiting for outside stimuli to open the lid.


I googled people who lost jobs because of cancel culture, there are many.
 
Last edited:
People are mad at Margaret Atwood now, maybe this has been going on for some time. I just found out about it.
 
Aren't people getting tired of this outrage cycle media? We are supposed to be up in arms because a famous comedian got canceled (read, paid 20 Million, can do comedy whenever he wants). Meanwhile, there are people exercising naked ideological punishment of people they don't like, with ease, that doesn't hear a peep. A woman was jailed in Oklahoma for having a miscarriage, the state is basically acting under Christain Sharia law.

With Trans people, the target of all this furor. 2021 is on track to be the deadliest year for murders of Trans people.

Yet I doubt the vast majority of people in the thread know that. But everybody has heard 'oh mean trans people, are bullying JK Rowling, or Dave Chappelle, or now Margaret Atwood'. Oh no, these poor suffering rich people, people are mean to them on social media.

These three also probably get more attention, since all three are supposed to know better. Atwood's book is literally about restrictive gender roles, but now she wants an iron wall between men and women?
 
Last edited:
I don’t think Chappelle was ever at risk of being “cancelled.” I’ve said before I’ve never thought of “cancel culture” being a new thing, which is why I use the quotation marks—you could go back to Tipper Gore and her crusade against heavy metal records in the ‘80s, but we didn’t use that term for it then.

As callous as this may sound, are the murder numbers being reported statistically significant when compared to non-trans people? We’re also kind of falling back into that Tipper Gore (or if you want, Joe Lieberman) territory—are violent records video games comedians causing crime? I don’t know how much overlap there is between watching a Netflix special and going out and harming someone.

Bear with me, but it could just be that any increase in statistics could be down to better diagnostics and not an upswell of violence; now that we’re generally more aware of trans people, we’ll also hear more about it when something happens.
 
Top Bottom