Dave Chappelle Netflix Specials

[RustyShackleford]

Looking at everything, I kinda get the feeling Dave's support for the transgender community is like his support for affordable housing

On housing, I am sure he thinks he supports affordable housing, but something just makes me believe he is not the committed ally he professes to me

On the transgender community, same thing

 

[gry60]

This attitude elides so much, and to me stinks of elite capture

Lol

who gets decide what words do harm?

is it the crowd?
because Dave is still popular, the special was view by bunches of people

Its a great thing that popularity alone isn't what determines what is and what isn't harmful.

the criticism was from a loud minority. so does that mean no harm?

Again, there are a number of very unethical ideologies that could be justified with this argument. I'm sure you know what some of them are.

Is it trans people? which trans people?
they aren't a monolith,

Good Lord! A complaint about a wrong committed against a population doesn't have to have a 100% agreement among those targeted to be valid. Black folks weren't a monolith during the era of Civil Rights, MLK was fairly unpopular, and Malcom X probably less so. Did that make their observations/comments on the state of race in the US invalid?

and you act like The Closer was clearly transphobic,
without any evidence other than vague gesturing at buzzwords like "TERF"

But, I don't...

A good number of folks who criticized his latest rounds of specials (not him) acknowledged they didnt think he was motivated by xenophobia, and they made it known that they separated him from the art they were criticizing.

The Tyrone BIggums sketches are demeaning to a mostly black population suffering from crack addiction
and further stigmatize a vulnerable population and will lead to real world violence against addicts.

The Tyrone Biggums sketches satirical exploration of growing up during the crack epidemic
and offers incisive commentary on how drug addiction and vagrancy can become normalized when communities are ignored and starved of resources.


both legitimate interpretations, which interpretation is correct?
and who gets to decide what is harm and what is satire?

Well, Chappelle himself learned that you can joke about anything, but you can't joke about everything with everybody.

The core of the criticism that you guys have been avoiding is that today, Dave Chappelle refuses to perform the introspection he was forced to do when he realized that the characters he portrayed in front of white audiences at the height of the Chappelle Show were not seen as elements of his social commentary, but clownish caricatures of ghetto people.

Chappelle is not gay, and I don't think he is affiliated to that culture. When folks from that culture said, "some of the **** you're saying isn't right," he should have listened instead of doubling down. Now that he's insisted on being tone-deaf, he can't be mad that he gained new fans among the all lives matter, lifted truck crowd. He can't be mad that the way some people perceive him has changed.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Once again, we're talking about video game makers/comics and how they deal with the perception of their product, not how the general public receives it.

And who decides this perception?

You? Me? Dave? The government?

Who?

Because it seems like me, Dave, and the government are fine with it and you're not

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Lol


Its a great thing that popularity alone isn't what determines what is and what isn't harmful.

i didn't say that it was, im asking you.

Again, there are a number of very unethical ideologies that could be justified with this argument. I'm sure you know what some of them are.

again I do not believe in your speech harm framework. im asking you who decides.

Good Lord! A complaint about a wrong committed against a population doesn't have to have a 100% agreement among those targeted to be valid. Black folks weren't a monolith during the era of Civil Rights, MLK was fairly unpopular, and Malcom X probably less so. Did that make their observations/comments on the state of race in the US invalid?

I didn't say they have to be, im asking you who decides what is harmful.
this conflict is in no way comparable to civil rights, we aren't arguing about civil rights for trans people.
dave is explicitly against anti trans legislation. we aren't arguing about rights.

we are arguing about art and what is an acceptable subject for comedy.

and as far as I can tell the argument is appears to be everything BUT trans people.
that doesn't seem workable to me.

Well, Chappelle himself learned that you can joke about anything, but you can't joke about everything with everybody.

The core of the criticism that you guys have been avoiding is that today, Dave Chappelle refuses to perform the introspection he was forced to do when he realized that the characters he portrayed in front of white audiences at the height of the Chappelle Show were not seen as elements of his social commentary, but clownish caricatures of ghetto people.

Chappelle is not gay, and I don't think he is affiliated to that culture. When folks from that culture said, "some of the **** you're saying isn't right," he should have listened instead of doubling down. Now that he's insisted on being tone-deaf, he can't be mad that he gained new fans among the all lives matter, lifted truck crowd. He can't be mad that the way some people perceive him has changed.

he did Tyrone BIggums on SNL last time her was on, so clearly whatever misgivings you are describing weren't enough for him not to reprise the character for a mostly white audience.

and again if Dave thinks Tyrone biggums is harmful, and I do not, who gets to decide?


you're avoiding the question. who gets to decide what is harmful and what isn't?
you say the concept is so simple.
absent explicit calls for violence how do you measure this? whose interpretation of harm is valid?

His space Jews about making fun of zionist and their relationship to Palestinians.
If zionists believes it's harmful and anti semetic
and a Palestinian thinks this is a incisive critique of an apartheid regime.


who gets to decide?

 

[thehealthinspector]

This is my main issue

His defense force wants to pretend that his statements in no way, shape, or form could ever in a million years ever ever ever cause any degree of harm to anyone anywhere and I personally think that's disingenuous at best

Are we pretending that violent video games in no way, shape, or form could ever in a million ever ever cause any degree of harm to anyone anywhere and being disingenuous?

Or have we accepted that there's no causation and anyone using them as an excuse is a moron?

 

[1995]

Are we pretending that violent video games in no way, shape, or form could ever in a million ever ever cause any degree of harm to anyone anywhere and being disingenuous?

Or have we accepted that there's no causation and anyone using them as an excuse is a moron?

gry60 already explained to you why this isn't an apt comparison...not sure why you think you're going to get something different out of me

I'm not interested

God bless

 

[thehealthinspector]

gry60 already explained to you why this isn't an apt comparison...not sure why you think you're going to get something different out of me

I'm not interested

God bless

If by explain, you mean gave some personal opinion shared by others who think like him, then sure

Nothing was explained

"deal with the perception of their product"

Must be dealing with it so horribly that some people don't like that he donated to the family members of gun violence, you know, actual violence

We've pretty much achieved ***** eating crackers level

 

[1995]

If by explain, you mean gave some personal opinion shared by others who think like him, then sure

Nothing was explained

"deal with the perception of their product"

Must be dealing with it so horribly that some people don't like that he donated to the family members of gun violence, you know, actual violence

We've pretty much achieved ***** eating crackers level

Dude I don't care

No idea why you're coming to me like I want to read any more of your bratty rants

 

[IATT]

If someone different from myself tells me some shh that is actually about them is offensive, I’ll take their word for it

no skin off of my back to give them that tiny bit of respect

just like if someone corrects me on mispronouncing their name.. I say my bad and move on, it’s their name

 

[jape]

it's not about you though

 

[IATT]

it's not about you though

exactly...

it’s their life, they know what they are dealing with far better than me

i can’t/shouldnt tell an Indian person how to feel about the Simpsons

 

[jape]

exactly...and a comedian what jokes not to tell

 

[IATT]

exactly...and a comedian what jokes not to tell

alot of comedians involved with the simpsons wrote/went into that Apu character

Being a comedian doesn’t give you a free pass to consequences

 

[thehealthinspector]

exactly...

it’s their life, they know what they are dealing with far better than me

i can’t/shouldnt tell an Indian person how to feel about the Simpsons

I wonder if they're going to go back and redo almost 30 seasons...

Or if they decided that art actually has some importance in society

.. And money

 

[DCAllAfrican]

exactly...and a comedian what jokes not to tell

Which jokes (or types of jokes) shouldn't be told?

For both you and IATT

 

[IATT]

Which jokes (or types of jokes) shouldn't be told?

For both you and IATT

do you, as long as you’re prepared to live with the consequences

let’s look at the former Washington football team name

it has always been racists and should have never been allowed

racism happens.. but you don’t need to be disingenuous and deny what you are being told because of the entertainment you receive

if people of a specific group tell you some shh is offensive, just admit you don’t give a damn.. the public at large clearly have a whole lot of people who don’t care.. there is no need deny what they are saying to make yourself feel better

the Simpsons could have done nothing with apu and I’m sure a decent amount of folks wouldn’t give a damn

 

[osh kosh bosh]

If by explain, you mean gave some personal opinion shared by others who think like him, then sure

Nothing was explained

"deal with the perception of their product"

Must be dealing with it so horribly that some people don't like that he donated to the family members of gun violence, you know, actual violence

We've pretty much achieved ***** eating crackers level

The violent video game hysteria is obviously very similar to the speech leads to harm frame work.



people just don't want to admit it

Because they don't want to see themselves as censorious conservatives suppresing artistic expression.

 

[IATT]

History is filled with numerous examples of speech leading directly to harm

Donald trump has numerous examples of him not being bout that life and yet a whole bunch of idiots have been inspired by his words to do harm

 

[gry60]

Last time he talked to them he lost his cool because the students were criticizing him.

He said in his speech that the reason he didn't put his name on the building was that he didn't want his name being up there being a reason kids feel bad

And who decides this perception?

You? Me? Dave? The government?

Who?

Because it seems like me, Dave, and the government are fine with it and you're not

This is English 101 my dude. The post above is what I was originally reacting to. We're not talking about what society thinks. We're talking about Dave Chappelle being upset at the criticism directed his way and him being too stubborn to change his ways.

I wonder if they're going to go back and redo almost 30 seasons...

Or if they decided that art actually has some importance in society

.. And money

They'll probably do what Disney/WB do when they show movies from eras with very different attitudes: add a disclaimer at the beginning.

It's because of its importance that art must be criticized; things that don't matter get ignored and forgotten.

The violent video game hysteria is obviously very similar to the speech leads to harm frame work.

Yeah, the only problem with this take is that you purposely massages the statement "speech leads to harm" to fit your argument.

It is DEHUMANIZING speech that leads to harm, and there are plenty of examples of such speech inspiring others to hurt folks, from Hitler to imams to anti-abortion activists to anti-gay priests to Putin to Pol Pot to radio Mille Collines and etc...

The way you choose to see things is kinda getting in the way of recorded history here.

 

[Mark Antony]

Do y'all think people that join cults or hate groups get drugged or something?


At the videogame comparison, real big brain stuff. Just call it and be done with this.

 

[RustyShackleford]

-Comparing progressives to conservatives' views on video games is silly to me.

It is really bad for one obvious reason, there are people advocating for committing violence against transgender people. I posted an example from someone who Trump endorsed for a sea in the Federal government. Places like Fox News and Newsmax walk up to that line daily. No one is making this up that people are using their speech to advocate for violence against the transgender community.

No video popular game did the same to young men. Master Chief didn't tell people to go shoot up a school, Doom Guy didn't tell people to go spray bullets at a supermarket, and Gordon Freeman stand silently in front of someone and made them get the message that they were a sucka for not escalating gang war.

Conservatives were manufacturing a moral outrage out of bad faith too. The NRA wanted them to move the blame from guns to something else.

You really have to strip away quite a bit of nuance for me to buy into this. Maybe the most extreme progressive examples do this, but the nonsense from conservatives was found in the median conservative.

If speech does not lead to harm, like would be cool with MSM platforming these MAGA lunatics when they want to fearmonger about transgender individuals and advocate for violence against them? If speech is so harmless, then discussing the "Jewish" problem should no longer be taboo, right? Hell a less extreme example, from a short while ago, Trump and his associates telling people the election was stolen, come protest, and then getting in front of a mob who they whipped up from weeks of propaganda that the people stealing your country is down the street, go tell them how they feel? Was that not a case of speech leading to harm?

Speech fomenting an environment that causes people to engage in violent behavior is not some progressive fairytale, it has happened. Dropping it because artists want to punch down without consequence seems dumb to me. Society have to be on guard against certain things.

Now you can say that Dave Chapelle's words, during a comedy special should not be viewed in the same light and people apply their criteria to strictly, ok I would agree with that. But I do think understand the argument that the country is generally hostile to transgender people, they are a lot of disrespectful and frankly dangerous things being done by conservatives, maybe disrespecting trans people on stage adds to his environment of hostility and disrespect and normalizing that level of disrespect is bad. It won't be the catalyst for violence, but you are adding drops to a pool that is about to overflow.

Acting like speech is harmless 100% is to me at best naive and at worst ignorant.

-In fact, Dave worst action IMO is not in The Closer, it is constant whining since it aired, and his stubbornness to reflect on the situation shows grace to anyone other than himself. Dave is made because of some internet critics, acting like they are the ones that represent the totality of the transgender community. He pulls out this story implying his trans friend was bullied to suicide (something that is highly questionable) but look just recently trans kids committed suicide because of cruelty from conservatives. But Dave seems to not care about any of that in a real way. He is the victim, he is getting bullied, kids that he wants admiration from shaded him so they must have been duped and used to oppress him. It just comes off as whinny elitist buffoonery that undermines a lot of what he said after he left the Chappelle show

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Yeah, the only problem with this take is that you purposely massages the statement "speech leads to harm" to fit your argument.

It is DEHUMANIZING speech that leads to harm, and there are plenty of examples of such speech inspiring others to hurt folks, from Hitler to imams to anti-abortion activists to anti-gay priests to Putin to Pol Pot to radio Mille Collines and etc...

The way you choose to see things is kinda getting in the way of recorded history here.

again with the vague gesturing at buzzwords
and of course it goes without saying that The Closer a special ends with a closing joke
where Dave implores the crowd to understand that his trans friend was a having a "HUMAN ******* experience"
this of course is dehumanizing.

we are talking about art not political speech.
comedy is about manipulating language to generate laughter and for some insight
everyone understands this, that's why most normal consumers will tolerate offensive language in comedy.

language that some may find libratory, some might find dehumanizing, it's not clear or obvious.
so who gets to decide?



a yes dehumanization, sounds NOTHING like violent video game opponents

"Unfortunately, the tiny line between freedom of speech and hate speech is becoming vague and blur more and more.
For example, GTA is a game that reflects dehumanizing acts and ideas;
it damages the image of women by presenting them as hookers and prostitutes,
moreover, in a way or other it encourages its users to perform illegal and dehumanizing acts."

or 90's gangster rap opponents

"Dionne Warwick and Melba Moore came to
Tucker in disgust about the newly popular music genre, gangsta rap. The women felt
dehumanized by the lyrics of gangsta rap and were concerned about its effect on younger
audiences. Tucker listened to this music and immediately found it distasteful and harmful to her
life’s work in civil and human rights"

or the 50's violent comic book opponents

Dr. Muhlen makes a great distinction between the “older, much-censored, and more refined newspaper comic strips,”
and the “dehumanized, concentrated, and repetitious showing of death and destruction”


no resemblance at all.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

-Comparing progressives to conservatives' views on video games is silly to me

It is really bad for one obvious reason, there are people advocating for committing violence against transgender people. I posted an example from someone who Trump endorsed for a sea in the Federal government. Places like Fox News and Newsmax walk up to that line daily. No one is making this up that people are using their speech to advocate for violence against the transgender community. And

No video popular game did the same to young men. Master Chief didn't tell people to go shoot up a school, Doom Guy didn't tell people to go spray bullets at a supermarket, and Gordon Freeman stand silently in front of someone and made them get the message that they were a sucka for not escalating gang war.

If speech does lead to harm, like would be cool with MSM platforming these MAGA lunatics when they want to fearmonger about transgender individuals and advocate for violence against them? If speech is so harmless, then discussing the "Jewish" problem should no longer be taboo, right? Hell a less extreme example, from a short while ago, Trump and his associates telling people the election was stolen, come protest, and then getting in front of a mob who they whipped up from weeks of propaganda that the people stealing your country is down the street, go tell them how they feel? Was that not a case of speech leading to harm?

Speech fomenting an environment that causes people to engage in violent behavior is not some progressive fairytale, it has happened. Dropping it because artists want to punch down without consequence seems dumb to me. Society have to be on guard against certain things.

Now you can say that Dave Chapelle's words, during a comedy special should not be viewed in the same light and people apply their criteria to strictly, ok I would agree with that. But I do think understand the argument that the country is generally hostile to transgender people, they are a lot of disrespectful and frankly dangerous things being done by conservatives, maybe disrespecting trans people on stage adds to his environment of hostility and disrespect and normalizing that level of disrespect is bad. It won't be the catalyst for violence, but you are adding drops to a pool that is about to overflow.

Acting like speech is harmless 100% is to me at best naive and at worst ignorant.

-In fact, Dave worst action IMO is not in The Closer, it is constant whining since it aired, and his stubbornness to reflect on the situation shows grace to anyone other than himself. Dave is made because of some internet critics, acting like they are the ones that represent the totality of the transgender community. He pulls out this story implying his trans friend was bullied to suicide (something that is highly questionable) but look just recently trans kids committed suicide because of cruelty from conservatives. But Dave seems to not care about any of that in a real way. He is the victim, he is getting bullied, kids that he wants admiration from shaded him so they must have been duped and used to oppress him. It just comes off as whinny elitist buffoonery that undermines a lot of what he said after he left the Chappelle show

im not saying that speech can 100% never lead to harm to be clear.

my point is outside of more specific calls to harm, or promotion of specific ideology.
it's too difficult to sus out what is harmful and what isn't, it's rarely that clear.

that's why I keep asking who gets to decide?

if you set up a culture where subjective notions of harm as it relates to be speech in art
need to actually be treated like harm

imo it's just something that will be abused by bad actors and make it impossible to create good art.
I see this all the time working in media, and it just develoves into office politics by other means.


imo the bar for that kind of claim has to be really high and I think people are trying bring the bar very low
and thats a bad idea imo.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

History is filled with numerous examples of speech leading directly to harm

Donald trump has numerous examples of him not being bout that life and yet a whole bunch of idiots have been inspired by his words to do harm

To tie this back to DC, can you point out which part of his specials could possibly lead/promote violence towards that group of people?

I'm not saying his words could/couldn't, but I am honestly unclear as to what he said that could be used as a motivating force to commit hate crimes.

I come in Peace.

 

[IATT]

To tie this back to DC, can you point out which part of his specials could possibly lead/promote violence towards that group of people?

I'm not saying his words could/couldn't, but I am honestly unclear as to what he said that could be used as a motivating force to commit hate crimes.

I come in Peace.

it is my view if we as a society accept a certain level of speech towards certain groups of people, then certain people then tend to feel empowered to react in unacceptable manners towards them

this pandemic has been a great example of this

we saw how reckless the former president and various people in high positions were in their words used towards Asian people, specifically Chinese people

there was a raise in violence towards those people and it’s not hard to connect the speech that was allowed to that raise