Dave Chappelle's Netflix show

[Kyriakos]

I imagine, as horses are able swimmers

I think he only entered the sea on the horse, and then dismounted, but couldn't allow himself to drown (?) due to natural aversion to so difficult a death.
Or maybe he just thought he could drown by simply willing his head to remain below water
He did leave a note, before shooting himself, advising against drowning as a method of suicide.

 

[NovaKart]

There wasn’t any hemlock?

 

[Kyriakos]

There wasn’t any hemlock?

I don't know... Most people at the time apparently either hanged or shot themselves (?). Poisons probably were more in fashion in western Europe.

 

[Drakle]

https://michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/moral-panic-journalism

Big article on the media's moral panic journalism about the 'out of control woke illiberal left' and how it's all bullfeathers, and it's all well-worn ground. Worth a read, on how it clearly presents the fabrications and distortions. This special is just the latest segment of this endless drama.

 

[Sofista]

I don't know... Most people at the time apparently either hanged or shot themselves (?). Poisons probably were more in fashion in western Europe.

He could have jumped on his own sword, like an ancient king.
Of course he most likely would have had to buy one, but why worry about money at that point?

 

[Hygro]

I don’t think clips would do this one justice. Indeed the segments aren’t his funniest but there’s a through point on white supremacy that I think would get lost.

 

[Farm Boy]

The whole reckoning with your heroes being just men and women didn't work right with clips in the first one. I'm going to avoid the 2nd one unless I sit down for the whole thing.

 

[Lexicus]

https://michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/moral-panic-journalism

Big article on the media's moral panic journalism about the 'out of control woke illiberal left' and how it's all bullfeathers, and it's all well-worn ground. Worth a read, on how it clearly presents the fabrications and distortions. This special is just the latest segment of this endless drama.

Man, Yascha Mounk had a terrible piece in the Atlantic recently called something like "Why the Latest Campus Cancellation is Different" and you, like, don't even need to read the article to know that the answer is "Because Yascha Mounk can imagine it happening to him"

Basically the punchline of all this cancellation nonsense is that, yes, "cancellation" is a real phenomenon insofar as people frequently get treated like doghorsehocky by their employers, sometimes due to public pressure, sometimes for other reasons, but now cultural elites are wailing about the downfall of Western Civilization because a combination of trends - basically, the increasing assertiveness of marginalized groups, and the regime of capitalist precarity slowly strangling the security that professional-class people, and particularly tenured academics, once enjoyed - now means that the nation's Thought Leadership Class can now see itself as the victim of this sort of arbitrary behavior.

And the solution is labor solidarity, unionization of workplaces, implementation of procedures to give people due process so they can't just be discarded because an employer didn't like the cut of their jib. But the same people who are complaining the loudest about cancel culture would literally rather eat my horsehocky than admit that unions are good. The idea that their success and security might rely on something other than their own individual talent, their education, the good decisions they've made throughout their lives, etc. is the most terrifying thing in the world to these people.

****note: I'm referring here to critics of cancel culture who are not just reactionary garbagemongers who just want to be bigoted without social consequence; I'm talking more about the centrist liberal types like Jonathan Chait or, you guessed it, Yascha Mounk.

 

[Farm Boy]

They always sometimes are. Good. That is, unions.

 

[Hygro]

And the solution is labor solidarity, unionization of workplaces, implementation of procedures to give people due process so they can't just be discarded because an employer didn't like the cut of their jib. But the same people who are complaining the loudest about cancel culture would literally rather eat my **** than admit that unions are good. The idea that their success and security might rely on something other than their own individual talent, their education, the good decisions they've made throughout their lives, etc. is the most terrifying thing in the world to these people.

Naturally.

 

[bernie14]

Naturally.

This but with (again, reference @Kyriakos lazy post)

 

[Drakle]

Also as all this nonsense gets top billing in posting. Republicans are literally running ON censorship.

Youngkin, the Republican gubernatorial candidate for Virginia, decided that an issue he wanted to run on and devote ad time and money towards, was the fact that in 2013, a teenager read a book for his English Class, the Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Beloved, about a family of ex-slaves. A book that is regarded as one of the best works of fiction by surveys of writers. Was loved so much by Oprah that she made a movie about it.

https://twitter.com/akarl_smith/status/1452677631758016513

The Mother, being a conservative activist pushed whole hog to ban the book, and the school board dismissed her because she is a clown. Of course, she and other conservatives sometimes pretend it's about the content, but it's always whitewashing history they don't like, like the fact that Slavery was terrible.

Her son is even quoted in the article, about having nightmares. Dude, I'd be so embarrassed about being the dude who got scared by a book on a national stage, let alone participating in that process. He isn't a little kid, he is an adult attending a college-level class. School discussions on slavery and the holocaust and other atrocities should be terrifying and real. That's how you teach it. And he had the option to opt-out from reading it ... which makes it fully clear that they just want to whitewash American History.

Literal Conservative Safe Spaces is their message.

Meanwhile, Texas is already in action, on banning books promoting 'critical race theory'. They've already banned some, and are calling for more. Along with stuff like firing a Black Principal for having a white wife. Yes, really.




More award-winning books.

The Confessions of Nat Turner is a book about a slave rebellion. That's critical race theory. LGBT issues. Critical Race Theory.

If you're confused by what critical race theory could possibly mean, it means nothing but a boogieman word. It was an obscure and complex niche academic law school terminology, that now means, whatever a snowflake Republican doesn't like.

Meanwhile, I think most people down on the Dave Chappelle special, don't even want it removed from Netflix or anything. That is my position. I just think it wasn't that funny and was more a screed by someone who doesn't really properly understand the situation.

 

[NovaKart]

Man, Yascha Mounk had a terrible piece in the Atlantic recently called something like "Why the Latest Campus Cancellation is Different" and you, like, don't even need to read the article to know that the answer is "Because Yascha Mounk can imagine it happening to him"

Basically the punchline of all this cancellation nonsense is that, yes, "cancellation" is a real phenomenon insofar as people frequently get treated like dog**** by their employers, sometimes due to public pressure, sometimes for other reasons, but now cultural elites are wailing about the downfall of Western Civilization because a combination of trends - basically, the increasing assertiveness of marginalized groups, and the regime of capitalist precarity slowly strangling the security that professional-class people, and particularly tenured academics, once enjoyed - now means that the nation's Thought Leadership Class can now see itself as the victim of this sort of arbitrary behavior.

And the solution is labor solidarity, unionization of workplaces, implementation of procedures to give people due process so they can't just be discarded because an employer didn't like the cut of their jib. But the same people who are complaining the loudest about cancel culture would literally rather eat my **** than admit that unions are good. The idea that their success and security might rely on something other than their own individual talent, their education, the good decisions they've made throughout their lives, etc. is the most terrifying thing in the world to these people.

****note: I'm referring here to critics of cancel culture who are not just reactionary garbagemongers who just want to be bigoted without social consequence; I'm talking more about the centrist liberal types like Jonathan Chait or, you guessed it, Yascha Mounk.

Again, misuse of the word literally.

 

[RobAnybody]

Also as all this nonsense gets top billing in posting. Republicans are literally running ON censorship.

This so much. If those of us who agree on, like 80-90% of stuff stopped trying to cancel each other when one of us doesn't meet The Purity Test 1000%, we'd stop feeding into the Republicans' hands & could stop relying on *maybe*, possibly, getting 50% sorta-Dems in Congress to accomplish anything.

And, yes, I recognize my own part in even arguing about stuff like this. I kinda recognized that a few pages ago - I was defeating that purpose as well.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

And yet Rowling was proven correct, was she not?

This could be dismissed as an one-off case. But there is much worse in this story.

The father of a teenage victim of rape in a chool, by a self-proclaimed "gender fluid" boy who was given easier access, was himself attacked, had the police set on him, and arrested on orders of the school board and supporting vocal "trans rights advocates" who clearly attempted to silence him and prevent the crime from being investigated.
There are contradictory reports on whether it actually happened in a bathroom, but I'm going with the trial version that it was in an empty classroom. So not a total vindication of Rowling, granted, but it could have happened in any women's only space.

This is disgraceful and worse than disgraceful. The self-proclaimed defenders of the rights of the oppressed minority had a father arrested for the "crime" of denouncing the rape his daughter had suffered. And they nearly got away with it.

The daily mail is more graphic, and this is one case that calls for graphics so that you can see the violence of police repression directed against a man who protested that a rape be investigated. This was vile.Those "activists" and that school board know they were covering up a rape. They didn't care: the "cause" was more important. This is the really evil thing: when a movement covers up crimes and acts against innocent people to suppress denunciations, when it attacks victims, they have crossed the line, they can no longer claim virtue and automatic support. It is fair and proper to discuss these problems, not allow howling packs to suppress discussion because the supposedly "oppressed" as we can see in this example, or rather, the ones who claim to defend the oppressed can very easily be oppressors. Rowling had a right to express her opinions, and events have shown that the did have a good point.

Advocacy for a cause must be grounded in reality and face not just the positives but the negatives and the risks. And obviously allow discussion of those.

 

[Ajidica]

Those "activists" and that school board know they were covering up a rape. They didn't care: the "cause" was more important.

Was it? Or was the school board doing what all administrators do and try and hide uncomfortable things (ie that a potential crime occurred) under the rug so they don't have to deal with it?
A variation on the old adage, one doesn't need to ascribe malice to what can be explained by bureaucracy.

EDIT: Forgot this part. So what are you saying in terms of 'Rowling is right'? Trans people should only be allowed to use special bathrooms? A gay man could sexually assault a male minor in a bathroom, but I think we would all consider it silly to say we need to ban gay men from male bathrooms because of that.

 

[innonimatu]

Was it? Or was the school board doing what all administrators do and try and hide uncomfortable things (ie that a potential crime occurred) under the rug so they don't have to deal with it?
A variation on the old adage, one doesn't need to ascribe malice to what can be explained by bureaucracy.

No, it wasn't just that. I read the reports at the time but reserved opinion pending investigation of the rape claims. Now they make sense.

The school board meeting was called when there was already conflict between the... I don't even know what names to use? The pro-mixed-bathrooms and the anti-that? It's weird these american cultural fights. But the point far as I could pick up is, that county leaned "conservative" but the school board members were "liberal". So the school board allowed (called) activists from outside the schools' region to take up speaker slots and basically organized the meeting so that only one viewpoint could prevail. Politics as usual, you may say again.

What spoiled the thing was this one pissed off father, who had serious reason to be pissed: his daughter had been raped, and he told the story there. And the vile thing is how this was handled. They tried to shut him up, and failing that they had him arrested. Then some groups clearly organized a media offensive against him throughout social media, both (ridiculous contradiction) mocking him as a fat slob beaten up by police, and describing as a dangerous domestic terrorist.

This was activism gone crazy, as it has become apparent before. No one is automatically a victim, automatically innocent, or automatically guilty. Discussion is allowed to reach a conclusion. But the activists on that meeting would have none of it, the father must be lying. That was the root cause of the arrest, the media circus afterwards, and this end that is an enormous shot in the foot for the cause those activists claimed to represent.

The woke are idiots. As people they are intolerant and vicious, and make no friends or win nobody else over. In terms of politics this "woke" style of doing things is a movement that could have been designed and carried out by infiltrators to destroy the credibility of the causes it attaches to! It's that ridiculous. This is yet another example.
Rowling could have been debated serenely, on grounds of unlikeliness of attacks, or on possible safeguards against those where danger was perceived. Instead they attempted to have her censored. It doesn't work. Reality always reasserts itself and if the concern is valid it will get demonstrated and the whole thing plays against those who censored.

 

[Drakle]

And yet Rowling was proven correct, was she not?

This could be dismissed as an one-off case. But there is much worse in this story.

The father of a teenage victim of rape in a chool, by a self-proclaimed "gender fluid" boy who was given easier access, was himself attacked, had the police set on him, and arrested on orders of the school board and supporting vocal "trans rights advocates" who clearly attempted to silence him and prevent the crime from being investigated.
There are contradictory reports on whether it actually happened in a bathroom, but I'm going with the trial version that it was in an empty classroom. So not a total vindication of Rowling, granted, but it could have happened in any women's only space.

This is disgraceful and worse than disgraceful. The self-proclaimed defenders of the rights of the oppressed minority had a father arrested for the "crime" of denouncing the rape his daughter had suffered. And they nearly got away with it.

The daily mail is more graphic, and this is one case that calls for graphics so that you can see the violence of police repression directed against a man who protested that a rape be investigated. This was vile.Those "activists" and that school board know they were covering up a rape. They didn't care: the "cause" was more important. This is the really evil thing: when a movement covers up crimes and acts against innocent people to suppress denunciations, when it attacks victims, they have crossed the line, they can no longer claim virtue and automatic support. It is fair and proper to discuss these problems, not allow howling packs to suppress discussion because the supposedly "oppressed" as we can see in this example, or rather, the ones who claim to defend the oppressed can very easily be oppressors. Rowling had a right to express her opinions, and events have shown that the did have a good point.

Advocacy for a cause must be grounded in reality and face not just the positives but the negatives and the risks. And obviously allow discussion of those.

Did you even read the article? You've seen my posts, you know I come to play when it comes to facts and sources. This isn't even the first time you've tried to pull a fast one on me.

The political firestorm was made up nonsense about the school allowing a rapist in who ambushed a girl in the bathrooms because they were gender fluid or whatever.

But from the article

Authorities have not commented on the youth’s gender identity and it did not become an issue Monday in court. During the hearing, the 15-year-old victim in the first case testified she had consensual sexual encounters with the defendant on two occasions in a girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn. On May 28, she said, the two arranged to meet again and the youth threw her to the floor and forced her to perform sex acts.

On Monday, the teenage victim of the Stone Bridge assault testified that she and her attacker had agreed to meet up in a school bathroom around 12:15 p.m. on the date of the assault. She testified they had not explicitly discussed having sex beforehand.

The teen testified she arrived first and chose to go in the girls’ bathroom because the two had always met in the girls’ bathrooms in the past. When the boy arrived, the teen testified, he came into the handicapped stall she was in and locked the door.

The two talked, before the girl testified the boy began grabbing her neck and other parts of her body in a sexual manner. She testified she told her attacker she was not in the mood for sex, but he forced himself on her.

“He flipped me over,” the girl testified. “I was on the ground and couldn’t move and he sexually assaulted me.”

The attack only stopped when someone came in the bathroom and startled the defendant, the victim testified. The girl testified that a second sexual assault occurred a little later. The judge found there was sufficient evidence to find the defendant had forced the girl into two sex acts.

The two teens had met about a month-and-a-half before the attack and became friends, the girl testified. The teens were not in the same grade, but shared friends in common.

Loudoun County Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Barry A. Zweig said in court that the teens had “sexually charged” conversations on the social media app Discord in the days leading up to the assault.

Zweig said the boy repeatedly asked the girl to engage in a particular sex act, but she rebuffed him each time. The day before the assault Zweig said the victim had been hospitalized because of a health condition that made her weak and the defendant “utilized her physical helplessness” to take advantage of her.

The issue was not that the boy was given access. They were already having sex in the bathrooms and were meeting again. Sneaking into the other gender bathroom to have sex would not be stopped or changed in any way, whatever the Trans Bathroom policy of the school is. This is a garden variety Date Rape, which is by a order of magnitude, more common as a type of sexual assault/rape, than an ambush in a bathroom by a stranger of any gender.

The dress and women's bathroom are unimportant details. This exact story could have happened in pants, in the science labs.

Tell me exactly how this story would be any different if the Trans bathroom policy was different?

The issue the school made, was allowing a boy, already under investigation for sexual assault, the chance to do it again, after this case happened. But the details on that are vague.

But let's get to down it. You see one story, even remotely related to Trans issue, and you just slap it down, as proof. Proof of what?

Proof that all Trans people are predatory? Certainly not.

Proof that one Trans (or at least non-cis) person is predatory? That was already a fact. The stance of Trans Rights is not, every single Trans person is a perfect angel. There are bad white and black people, straight and gay people, cis and Trans. The issue is that all these Trans Bathroom bills, would do nothing about sexual assault, it's just an excuse to engage in bigotry against a marginalised minority.

Quoting the Daily Mail just betrays your real stance. They are sensationalist, bigoted morons, who ignore and mock victims of sexual assault unless it fits a narrative like predators in dresses or immigrant rapists. Rape hysteria against marginalised groups has a very long and dark past, it was one of the most common ways that lynching was justified by mass media. And the tradition is still carried on by scum like the Daily Mail.

The Father was arrested because he fought the cops when they tried to motion him out from being disruptive. That's not woke authoritarianism, that's what American police do to any resistance.

Schools cover-up or obscure sexual assaults all the time. They never get traction. But a culture war marker gets attached, and you guys go bananas.

And the cover-up is ... The person who committed a sexual assault is in court and was found guilty of sexual assault. That is the system working correctly.

 

[innonimatu]

@Drakle it's not about the trans bathroom thing. It's about the reaction to the parent who brought the story of the rape of his daughter. HE was automatically attacked and vilified, called a liar and clearly targeted for silencing. It backfired, obviously.

Hearing him out would have prevented this firestorm, as you put it. Setting the police on him, mocking him, it set up the perfect firestorm.

You will also notice that I quoted the Washington Post to start with. You too are attempting to bury the story by 1. misdirecting (it was about the bathrooms thing? No, that was just the trigger) 2. attacking the source (but being unable to attack the WP, you can't dismiss it).

Actually this story does matter for the substance of the argument over bathrooms as it was put by Rowling. She voiced concern about "biological men" who identified as women gaining access to women's only areas and raping women. That concert was shouted out, dismissed out of hand.
But this story does prove one thing without a question, unless you want to argue the court decision yesterday was based on false evidence. That a trans boy (is the defendant trans?) can rape a girl. This proves that Rowling's concern cannot just be dismissed out of hand.

You can make the point that it would be a very rare thing indeed, unlikely. That the risk is low enough that you consider it dismissable compared to the benefit of allowing that use of the bathrooms. Want you cannot do is pretend that her concern is null and void and that she doesn't have the right to state it and must be an enemy if she does. In doing that you would come across as false and make enemies instead of win people over.

This attempt to silence a father who wanted to present the case of her daughter having been raped is a perfect illustration of how stupid it is to do that. It blows in the face of those who do it and wins them determined enemies.
Imo back in the days of cointelpro the CIA couldn't have done better that the democratic leadership and its constellation of NGO are doing now to destroy the credibility of "the left" with the public there...

 

[Drakle]

@Drakle it's not about the trans bathroom thing. It's about the reaction to the parent who brought the story of the rape of his daughter. HE was automatically attacked and vilified, called a liar and clearly targeted for silencing. It backfired, obviously.

Hearing him out would have prevented this firestorm, as you put it. Setting the police on him, mocking him, it set up the perfect firestorm.

You will also notice that I quoted the Washington Post to start with. You too ate attempting to bury the story by 1. misdirecting (it was about the bathrooms thing? No, that was just the trigger) 2. attacking the source (but being unable to attack the WP, you can't dismiss it).

Actually this story does matter for the substance of the argument over bathrooms as it was put by Rowling. She voiced concern about "biological men" who identified as women gaining access to women's only areas and raping women. That concert was shouted out, dismissed out of hand.
But this story does prove one thing without a question, unless you want to argue the court decision yesterday was based on false evidence. That a trans boy (is the defendant trans?) can rape a girl. This proves that Rowling's concern cannot just be dismissed out of hand.

Yes, it was about the 'Trans Bathroom thing'. You can't even control yourself, you say that in your first line, then go straight to

Actually this story does matter for the substance of the argument over bathrooms as it was put by Rowling. She voiced concern about "biological men" who identified as women gaining access to women's only areas and raping women. That concert was shouted out, dismissed out of hand.

You can't even keep your argument straight over the course of a single post.

I'm not burying the story. I'm the only one here who actually took the time to quote the Washington Post. I also suspect that I might be the only one of us two to properly read it since you would realise it doesn't support your argument. I think that you saw the Daily Mail's hysteria, and then realised you would get clowned on, so grabbed a link to a respectable paper even though it didn't back you up.

This isn't the first time that your own linked sources, don't support what you are saying.

But this story does prove one thing without a question, unless you want to argue the court decision yesterday was based on false evidence. That a trans boy (is the defendant trans?) can rape a girl. This proves that Rowling's concern cannot just be dismissed out of hand.

Already answered which you failed to respond to.

The issue the school made, was allowing a boy, already under investigation for sexual assault, the chance to do it again, after this case happened. But the details on that are vague.

But let's get to down it. You see one story, even remotely related to Trans issue, and you just slap it down, as proof. Proof of what?

Proof that all Trans people are predatory? Certainly not.

Proof that one Trans (or at least non-cis) person is predatory? That was already a fact. The stance of Trans Rights is not, every single Trans person is a perfect angel. There are bad white and black people, straight and gay people, cis and Trans. The issue is that all these Trans Bathroom bills, would do nothing about sexual assault, it's just an excuse to engage in bigotry against a marginalised minority.

You also haven't answered my counter-question

Tell me exactly how this story would be any different if the Trans bathroom policy was different?

And all the Father crap is a red herring. The case was prosecuted. But being related to a victim of a crime isn't an excuse to be rowdy and to struggle with the cops. I don't see him actually being charged, all he got was taken from a school board meeting.

There are actual cases of victims of sexual assualt really being swept under the rug. This is why MeToo is a good thing, and Institutions need to improve their handling of it. The Dress and Bathroom was irrelevant. But if this had just been a fumble behind the lockers that turned into sexual assault between cis people, I doubt it would have made local news, let alone International, like this one did.