Dave Chappelle Netflix Specials

[RustyShackleford]

I agree the lying is pretty shameful.

but hey maybe the lying is working and he's changing minds
and the audience is learning the Dave is wrong and the special is irredeemably transphobic.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

or maybe not.

Let me start by saying I have no clue what is the point of this post, honestly.

In all seriousness, I don't think Meth is arguing in bad faith or lying on you.

My comment was meant to be sarcastic. Like you get so worked up about a small group of people that piss you off that whenever you engage with someone on a subject you kinda demand them answer for the people that piss you off.

I have said this to you many times and I know you "yah don't agree". But a lot of the complaints you have about how people engage with your comments, you do the same to them.

Like you want to complain about him lying on you, right after misquoting what he said about you. And after taking issue with him supposedly using a logical fallacy against your argument, you use one against him.

Sorry, but I find it hard to be sympathetic to your complaints

 

[RustyShackleford]

i never seen so much passion from meth

u and meth over trading novels about trans

with that said ur fighting a battle u can't win

What was your previous screen name?

 

[Mark Antony]

Watched it over the weekend. Thought it wasn't particularly funny, honestly. Only one joke made me genuinely laugh.

I'm not one to shy away from boundary-pushing comedy. Hell, Norm MacDonald has been my favorite forever. I just thought this one was a dud in comparison to his classics. If you're gonna try to push the limits the jokes better hit, and I think the edge:humor ratio was skewed too much to one side.

When the special ended I didn't say anything and my girl just said "hmm...interesting" and we kept it moving.

On a purely comedy level it was weak. Dave has become this big arena comedy guy like a George Lopez where no matter what he says he'll get the loud WOOOS from the audience and fervent supporters. Like it's not even about the jokes anymore it's idol worship.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I have no clue what is the point of this post

First, in all seriousness, I don't think Meth is arguing in bad faith or lying on you.

My comment was meant to be sarcastic. Like you get so worked up about a small group of people that piss you off that whenever you engage with someone on a subject you kinda demand them answer for the people that piss you off.

I have said this to you many times and I know you "yah don't agree". But a lot of the complaints you have about how people engage with your comments, you do the same to them.

I did not argue that "hate crimes are a hoax",, the articles don't say all hate crimes are a hoax.
so if someone says that I did argue that, im supposed to take take that as what?


a mistruth? what do you call that? in Canada it's generally referred to a lie, but maybe the maple syrup is messing with our brains up here.

when you use the identity of the people who agree with you to confer authority to your opinion.
but the content of those opinions contain bad facts, is it unreasonable of me to point that out?

if someone makes references to harm, I can't question the severity or accuracy of the claims of harm?

 

[LouBrickaSian]

Let me start by saying I have no clue

what's new

What was your previous screen name?

i don't know officer

 

[RustyShackleford]

I did not argue that "hate crimes are a hoax",, the articles don't say all hate crimes are a hoax.
so if someone says that I did argue that, im supposed to take take that as what?


a mistruth? what do you call that? in Canada it's generally referred to a lie, but maybe the maple syrup is messing with our brains up here.

when you use the identity of the people who agree with you to confer authority to your opinion.
but the content of those opinions contain bad facts, is it unreasonable of me to point that out?

if someone makes references to harm, I can't question the severity or accuracy of the claims of harm?

Could you quote me where Meth said you argue that?

Because I search "hoax" for his post and got this...

1.

So you called trans people a "super minority" and cited the author of "Hate Crime Hoax"?

I don't think either of those things are particularly "nuanced."

2.

Oh, now who's "smashing strawmen?"

Killing every trans person before the age of 35? Source?


Here's what actually happened:

You did the laziest possible "research" to "just ask questions" about whether violence against trans people is overstated or, in the words of one of the people you cited, a hoax.
I should expect nothing less from a Joe Rogan fan.


I hope you'll someday muster up the courage to face Maribel and Beckett at work so you can stop badgering people online with this bad faith "anti-woke" garbage.

3.

If your first instinct is to attack the data, that could be because you're just that committed to high quality research - but, that explanation is kind of hard to take when you're out here uncritically citing someone who believes that hate crimes generally - including racist hate crimes - are a "hoax" by the left. Somehow, I doubt you took the time to double check their methods before "signal boosting" their conclusions.

4.

That's

the "central question?" No, that's your smokescreen.

You're trying to drag the argument to a debate over a particular statistic - which I did not even cite in this topic – to distract from the broader, and undeniably valid, point that trans people, and especially Black trans people, are subject to hate crimes, suicide, and violence disproportionate to their share of the population. The links I included were all from reputable outlets, among them a list by the HRC of trans people who were murdered last year. That list alone is more than sufficient evidence to demonstrate that violence against trans people is a problem, with or without the one stat you're "just asking questions" about, and yet you've decided that it would be enjoyable to bring to the discussion an article from the equivalent of trutheagle.gun pinched out by somebody who characterizes hate crimes against trans people as a hoax.

You are simultaneously attempting to dismiss a statistic as being “unscientific” compared to medical research while attempting to substantiate your own view by plopping a few keywords into Google to see if anyone out there in the world will validate your prejudices for you. When you managed to find two, your “work” was done.

That is why I compared your “research” to that of anti-vaxxers. You weren't looking to inform yourself; you were groping around for anything that fit your preconceived argument.

Tell us: did you even read the links you posted? Were you aware that the author of one is a MAGA supporter playing Sandy Hook truther with hate crimes against trans people?
And you, of all people, have the temerity to question anyone else's sources?

1. He cities a name of a book
2. He correctly describes your issue with the supposed overstating of occurrences of hate crimes. The hoax was in reference to the author.
3 & 4. Talking about the author, and said the author's position is hate crimes against trans people are and hoax.

On 3 and 4, maybe I could see you taking issue because the author didn't say all hate crimes are a hoax. Framing it as a widespread issue is a hoax. The author also argues though that individual reports of hate crimes are false. So in a way he is calling individual occurrences hate crimes hoaxes too, but if you want to be a stickler for clarity, then ok maybe Meth should have framed those comments as he did in the 2nd example. But generally, I think he presented his criticisms in good faith.

Through this, I didn't see him claim you argued all hate crimes are a hoax. Seems to me that he is correctly pointing out how you posted the articles as a pushback against what you saw was untrue claims by progressive, that used bad statistics, but you never gave the articles you posted the same level of inspection you demand others give the progressive arguments.

I mean if you are gonna claim your own reading and researching has to lead you to understand progressive are making dubious claims, and you think others should do the same, isn't it worth inspecting some of the issues with the articles you posted. Because I could name many. Putting my political leanings aside, I have read enough economic papers that some major red flags jump out at me in the article. You don't address this, instead, you mainly present them as solid evidence, and in response to Meth pointing the issues with how you did that, you claim Meth is just trying to discredit with a logical fallacy.

So yeah, I don't think you argued hate crimes were a hoax. It would have been wrong for you to be accused of that. But I also don't think that is the issue Meth raise about your post. It is your argument progressives overstate the problem with violence against the trans community, and then you trying to back up your argument in a rather lazy way. This wouldn't be an issue by itself, but it kinda undercuts your point about progressives and their claims.

But again, can you quote where he actually said that? Maybe I missed it

Because if you are calling him a liar, it might be important to present what he actually said.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Could you quote me where Meth said you argue that?

Because I search "hoax" for his post and got this...

1.



2.



3.


4.




1. He cities a name of a book
2. He correctly describes the author's view that the supposed hoax is the overstating of occurrences of hate crimes
3 & 4. Talking about the author, and said the author's position is hate crimes against trans people are and hoax.

On 3 and 4, maybe I could see you taking issue because the author didn't say all hate crimes are a hoax. Framing it as a widespread issue is a hoax. The author also argues though that individual reports of hate crimes are false. So in a way he is calling individual occurrences hate crimes hoaxes too, but if you want to be a stickler for clarity, then ok maybe Meth should have framed those comments as he did in the 2nd example. But generally, I think he presented his criticisms in good faith.

Through this, I didn't see him claim you argued all hate crimes are a hoax. Seems to me that he is correctly pointing out how you posted the articles as a pushback against what you saw was untrue claims by progressive, that used bad statistics, but you never gave the articles you posted the same level of inspection you demand others give the progressive arguments.

I mean if you are gonna claim your own reading and researching has to lead you to understand progressive are making dubious claims, and you think others should do the same, isn't it worth inspecting some of the issues with the articles you posted. Because I could name many. Putting my political leanings aside, I have read enough economic papers that some major red flags jump out at me in the article. You don't address this, instead, you mainly present them as solid evidence, and in response to Meth pointing the issues with how you did that, you claim Meth is just trying to discredit with a logical fallacy.

So yeah, I don't think you argued hate crimes were a hoax. It would have been wrong for you to be accused of that. But I also don't think that is the issue Meth raise about your post. It is your argument progressives overstate the problem with violence against the trans community, and then you trying to back up your argument in a rather lazy way. This wouldn't be an issue by itself, but it kinda undercuts your point about progressives and their claims.

But again, can you quote where he actually said that? Maybe I missed it

Because if you are calling him a liar, it might be important to present what he actually said.

1. but...i didn't cite...the book. that seems important no?

2. he said "That you dislike a stat nobody here used hardly justifies throwing a hand grenade into the room in the form of some "hate crimes are a hoax" take you failed to vet"

you think "hate crimes are a hoax" is reasonable interpretation of the point i was making? i don' think so.

if you want to tell me the math in that article is wrong, fine.
im sure I don't have as much experience reading academic paper as you do.

but he's not saying that, he's saying the author is a bad person who has written bad things in the past so therefore it must be wrong.

and my point wasn't that each of these articles are just totally irrefutable refutations every opposing viewpoint
my point is there is more than enough doubt where disagreement with claims of harm aren't instantly transphobia.

 

[Methodical Management]

if someone makes references to harm, I can't question the severity or accuracy of the claims of harm?

The accuracy of whose claims?

I don’t believe anybody in here cited that statistic. It is not CENTRAL to the belief that the public denigration of trans people adversely impacts them, and their ongoing struggle for equality.

Do you believe that trans people, particularly Black trans women, are not disproportionately subject to violence and are, in your view, safer than cishet people?

You’ve explicitly argued that they comprise a “super minority.” Am I distorting your direct quote?

Talking about the author, and said the author's position is hate crimes against trans people are and hoax.

The full title of that author’s book is “Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War.”

Osh doesn’t seem to mind taking his claims at face value, as long as the article title favors his premise. I’m sure his reasoning for determining that the reported racist hate crime surge is fictitious is entirely separate from his claim that hate crimes against trans people are overstated.

I agree the lying is pretty shameful.

but hey maybe the lying is working and he's changing minds
and the audience is learning the Dave is wrong and the special is irredeemably transphobic.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

or maybe not.

I wonder what the rotten tomatoes scores would’ve been for Gone With the Wind at the time of its release.

Really top notch argument there.

A popular prejudice is popular, you say? This changes everything!

1. but...i didn't cite...the book. that seems important no?

Who cited the 35 year life expectancy figure?

 

[trynafeelmink]

Surprised to see Netflix standing by Chapelle on this one (although a large portion of this is surely money motivated)

At some point the world has got to stop dismissing what was said & done & replacing it with their projections.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Standing by Dave how?

By not taking sides in this progressive "with us or against us" war?

 

[osh kosh bosh]

The accuracy of whose claims?

I don’t believe anybody in here cited that statistic. It is not CENTRAL to the belief that the public denigration of trans people adversely impacts them, and their ongoing struggle for equality.

you didn't directly cite the statistic, you referenced the violence subjected to black trans people generally.
so if you think something is wrong because of the harm that it causes it's wrong to question the levels of harm?

I do not believe the special is simply "a public denigration of trans people"
minds can differ on this without being accused of bigotry.

The full title of that author’s book is “Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War.”

Osh doesn’t seem to mind taking his claims at face value, as long as the article title favors his premise. I’m sure his reasoning for determining that the reported racist hate crime surge is fictitious is entirely separate from his claim that hate crimes against trans people are overstated.

you want to call back to these are bad people who write bad things.

my point is the harm being described is contestable, and I don't think it's reasonable
to take contestable claims and use them as a justification to police the boundaries of acceptable discourse.

I wonder what the rotten tomatoes scores would’ve been for Gone With the Wind at the time of its release.

Really top notch argument there.

A popular prejudice is popular, you say? This changes everything!

No the populous can be wrong obviously, and maybe they are
but clearly I would imagine your goal is to shift popular opinion.

if it's possible that the line of argument you're are pursuing is unconvincing to non elites,
maybe the argument is not persuasive?


and

gone with the wind is racist, and a great film.
Birth of a Nation is a racist, and it pretty much invented the visual language of movies.

do I think no streaming service or anything should ever carry Gone with the wind?


again maybe this is me being biased in the favor of art, but I don't agree with that.

 

[trynafeelmink]

Standing by Dave how?

By not taking sides in this progressive "with us or against us" war?

Had this been any lower level comedian this special would have been pulled, not of actual merit or necessity but due to complaining & bad press.

 

[1995]

Standing by Dave how?

By not taking sides in this progressive "with us or against us" war?

How long until you invoke the Antifa boogeyman like you did when you were in the MMA thread taking up for that racist who got punched?

 

[6pac]

Standing by Dave how?

By not taking sides in this progressive "with us or against us" war?

By not taking the special down or buckling under all this butthurt

Although I’m sure they’re partially motivated by wanting to be the streaming host of his next creative endeavor

 

[tr1ll]

In this situation, there kinda is no “not taking sides”. No action can be seen as an action. Also, Dave really need anyone to host anything.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Had this been any lower level comedian this special would have been pulled, not of actual merit or necessity but due to complaining & bad press.

this is why i always find the "there's no such thing as cancel culture! dave hasn't been cancelled!"
arguments so unconvincing.

like yah the biggest comedian on the planet earth has been able to withstand the onslaught.

seems to me it creates a chilling effect for the 99.999999999% of comedians below Dave.

 

[aepps20]

Saving this thread as the final piece of evidence needed to impeach Meth and turn over NT to jrose5

 

[thehealthinspector]

How long until you invoke the Antifa boogeyman like you did when you were in the MMA thread taking up for that racist who got punched?

What does this have to do with this thread?

Are you another one of those internet tough guys punching racists in real life? All racists or just white racists? All white racists or just white racists smaller than you? Or maybe you just keep your mouth shut in real life?

 

[LouBrickaSian]

Saving this thread as the final piece of evidence needed to impeach Meth and turn over NT to jrose5

JRose5 got banned!?

meth done ran everyone off cept solewomen

 

[trynafeelmink]

this is why i always find the "there's no such thing as cancel culture! dave hasn't been cancelled!"
arguments so unconvincing.

like yah the biggest comedian on the planet earth has been able to withstand the onslaught.

seems to me it creates a chilling effect for the 99.999999999% of comedians below Dave.

I see both sides of that argument, Cancel culture exist on the main corporate levels because they're concern is everybody so they try to sit next to whatever is "safe" for their respective demos.

Thing is that nowadays people don't exactly "need" corporate/mainstream & can still be highly successful on an independent/individual level. Getting cancelled doesn't mean your career will disappear, however much less opportunities will be coming your way from corporate entities.

I would advise anyone getting into content creation to really examine that reality going forward. you want that corporate money you are at their mercy (see Kevin Hart any time he does ANYTHING unfavorable)

Dave is one of those rare cases who can do his art untouched while corporate still backs him, because he's grown his brand big enough for them to still ensure an audience comes with it no matter how much others may be upset.

 

[Kinfolk]

What does this have to do with this thread?

Are you another one of those internet tough guys punching racists in real life? All racists or just white racists? All white racists or just white racists smaller than you? Or maybe you just keep your mouth shut in real life?

As with the Gruden thing, people generally exhibit a pattern in their commentary. Once he made racist comments about Mr. Smith's lips so casually and on a work email server, it was a pretty safe bet that more abhorrent commentary was coming down the pipeline. And what happened? More abhorrent commentary came down the pipeline into public view.

MMA is bafoonery to me personally, so I didn't see the comments he's referencing but if he did invoke the "Antifa Boogeyman", it wouldn't be a stretch (also wouldn't be a guarantee) that the same person would invoke those similar comically stupid talking points in another unrelated thread.

 

[Methodical Management]

my point is the harm being described is contestable, and I don't think it's reasonable
to take contestable claims and use them as a justification to police the boundaries of acceptable discourse.

By cherry-picking one particular stat nobody here cited, as if that's the only meaningful measure of harm?

I referenced Kenneth Clark's doll study to illustrate the impacts of stereotyping and public derision beyond individual "hurt feelings." You don't want to talk about that.
You want to talk about this "straight line to mass murder" and 35 year life expectancy nobody in this thread invoked.

if it's possible that the line of argument you're are pursuing is unconvincing to non elites,
maybe the argument is not persuasive?

Ah, here we go: back on the hobby horse. That didn't take long.

Move over, trans activists of color who dare take issue with public ridicule as product, there's a liberal elite academic orthodoxy to tilt at.

gone with the wind is racist, and a great film.
Birth of a Nation is a racist, and it pretty much invented the visual language of movies.

do I think no streaming service or anything should ever carry Gone with the wind?


again maybe this is me being biased in the favor of art, but I don't agree with that.

I'd never claim to be a film buff, but we have very different taste.
I'm not of the opinion that innovative cinematography is a redeeming quality in a piece of racist propaganda.

If celebrating "Confederate values" bothers you less than being peer-pressured into using "person-first" language to avoid dehumanization, that's your prerogative.


Personally, I fail to see the value in applying a lower standard to content that has a broader reach.
If someone makes offensive jokes in a private email, it's disqualifying, but if Sam Kinison screams them into a microphone it's art?


There are more existential threats to people's lives than offensive entertainment products, but I'd argue that it is a positive that companies who produce such content are subject to public pressure and made to confront the impact of these works.
I've yet to see progress in the absence of pressure.

 

[Nike Jordan]

this is why i always find the "there's no such thing as cancel culture! dave hasn't been cancelled!"
arguments so unconvincing.

It doesn't exist, like the Easter Bunny.

 

[RustyShackleford]

1. but...i didn't cite...the book. that seems important no?

2. he said "That you dislike a stat nobody here used hardly justifies throwing a hand grenade into the room in the form of some "hate crimes are a hoax" take you failed to vet"

you think "hate crimes are a hoax" is reasonable interpretation of the point i was making? i don' think so.

if you want to tell me the math in that article is wrong, fine.
im sure I don't have as much experience reading academic paper as you do.

but he's not saying that, he's saying the author is a bad person who has written bad things in the past so therefore it must be wrong.

and my point wasn't that each of these articles are just totally irrefutable refutations every opposing viewpoint
my point is there is more than enough doubt where disagreement with claims of harm aren't instantly transphobia.

1. Um, so what?

When Ezra Klein and Sam Harris were having their back and forth, Klein was trying to point out that Charles Murray had a bad agenda, and that his research on intelligence can't be looked at in a vacuum because of it. Harris refused to accept this. So Klein mentioned how Murray wrote articles about how he counted up contributions to the encyclopedia and attached that to a racial argument. Harris got upset because he wanted to keep the conversation within the confines of what he viewed as purely academic research.

Meth did post articles that present a good faith nuanced case about the unique difficulties facing the transgender community. He has made his own argument on the subject. Seems like he brought up the book title to show the author has general agenda, you can't just look at the article by itself if it ties back to a larger body of work, which damn sure appears to be in somewhat bad faith. Same way Klein tried to show Harris Murray wasn't just a researcher, he had a racialist agenda.

2. But "hate crimes is a hoax" thing refers to the article, that is the grenade. Not your general position. He is taking issue with your questioning the idea what transgender violence is as widespread as a progressive claim, and to argue this point you posted an article, which made a claim and arguments you didn't vet. I can't speak for Meth but this again seems like he is taking issue with the posting of the article, throwing that grenade, not that he is simply summarizing your argument as simply "hate crimes are a hoax"

Let us look at the order of events though. Meth posted articles before you. Your articles were a response to the ones he posted. The articles acknowledged the issues with data collection, the talked about how discrimination put transgender people into vulnerable economic positions that in turn put them in greater danger. They didn't meet you criteria of proving direct and clear causation, but they presented a rather fair and nuanced argument. They did not fall into the category of progressive gone too far arguments you seem to have a major issue with.

So if your articles were a response to his, and they didn't really disprove his in many real way, which is fine. But why the onus is on him now to disprove everything presented in your articles?

And if you say you just posted them to show there is not a consensus on the issue, ok fine, but so what? That doesn't really refute any argument in any real way eiher.

 

[RustyShackleford]

this is why i always find the "there's no such thing as cancel culture! dave hasn't been cancelled!"
arguments so unconvincing.

like yah the biggest comedian on the planet earth has been able to withstand the onslaught.

seems to me it creates a chilling effect for the 99.999999999% of comedians below Dave.

I'm really to be concerned that stand-ups can't freely crack jokes about transgender individuals?

There are situations where a mob mentality can go too far in what they believe is social progress. And some people can get unfairly and disproportionately punished

But I worry about cases like what happened at Smith College as opposed to aspiring stand-ups having less subjects to work with