Dave Chappelle Netflix Specials

[osh kosh bosh]

Yeah I don't think anyone wants that, sometimes folks just want to have the conversation and to be heard. That would be absurd if that is what they wanted, but again I haven't heard any actual tangible request from anyone on any side.

I think it's very obviously what they want.
They don't want to say that because they know it makes them sound like absurd and unreasonable people.

but the text or subtext of 90% of the most vocal critics are;

this special is not only offensive but it's dangerous,
and it should not be available for public consumption.


if this isn't the case then nobody should be mad at the Netflix CEO,
- He acknowledged that some were legitimately hurt or offended
- welcomed the dialogue and conversation
- but said he would not remove the special.

Why are people walking out over that, if all they wanted was "to be heard"?
being heard clearly is not enough, they need Netflix to agree with their politics.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Yeah I don't think anyone wants that, sometimes folks just want to have the conversation and to be heard. That would be absurd if that is what they wanted, but again I haven't heard any actual tangible request from anyone on any side.

Netflix trans employees and allies release a list of demands ahead of the walkout

Taking down the Dave Chappelle special isn’t one of them.

www.theverge.com

This the Trans employee group at Netflix demands...

Over the past few weeks, it has become clear that there are many places where Netflix

still has to grow when it comes to content relating to the trans and non-binary

community. The Trans* Employee Resource Group, which includes trans and

non-binary colleagues as well as our numerous allies, wants Netflix to immediately take

the steps below to begin to repair the relationship between the Company, our

colleagues, and our audience. Specifically, we want the Company to adopt measures

in the areas of Content Investment, Employee Relations and Safety, and Harm

Reduction, all of which are necessary to avoid future instances of platforming

transphobia and hate speech, and to account for the harm we have caused and will

continue to cause until the below measures are put in place.

Content Investment

• Create a new fund to specifically develop trans and non-binary talent

○ This fund should support both above-the-line (ATL) and below-the-line

(BTL) talent;

○ This fund should exist in addition to the existing Creative Equity Fund;

• Increase investment in trans and non-binary content on Netflix comparable to

our total investment in transphobic content, including marketing and

promotion;

• Invest in multiple trans creators to make both scripted and unscripted programs

across genres;

• Revise internal processes on commissioning and releasing potential harmful

(“sensitive”) content, including but not limited to involving parties who are a

part of the subject community and can speak to potential harm, or consulting

with 3rd party experts/vendors;

• Increase the ERG role in conversations around potentially harmful content and

ensure we have best in class regional support on complicated intersectional

diversity issues;

• Hire trans and non-binary content executives, especially BIPOC, in leading

positions;

Employee Relations and Safety

• Recruit trans people, especially BIPOC, for leadership roles in the company

(Director, VP, etc.) and promote an inclusive environment for them;

• Allow employees to remove themselves from previous company promotional

content (e.g. allyship and diversity videos, etc.);

• Eliminate references/imagery of transphobic titles or talent inside of the

workplace, including but not limited to murals, posters, room names, swag;

Harm Reduction

• Acknowledge the harm and Netflix’s responsibility for this harm from

transphobic content, and in particular harm to the Black trans community;

• Add a disclaimer before transphobic titles that specifically flag transphobic

language, misogyny, homophobia, hate speech, etc. as required;

• Boost promotion for Disclosure and other trans-affirming titles in the platform;
• Suggest trans-affirming content alongside and after content flagged as

anti-trans.

We are employees, but we are members, too. We believe that this Company can and

must do better in our quest to entertain the world, and that the way forward must

include more diverse voices in order to avoid causing more harm. The Trans* ERG

looks forward to working with the Company to make this a better, more entertaining

place for us all.

Sincerely-

Trans* Netflix

 

[osh kosh bosh]

• Revise internal processes on commissioning and releasing potential harmful

(“sensitive”) content, including but not limited to involving parties who are a

part of the subject community and can speak to potential harm, or consulting

with 3rd party experts/vendors;

• Increase the ERG role in conversations around potentially harmful content and

ensure we have best in class regional support on complicated intersectional

diversity issues;

and there you have it

"all Netflix content should align with our politics."

 

[RustyShackleford]

and there you have it

"all Netflix content should align with our politics."

That is literally not what it says though

Seems like you are just interrupting those things in the most uncharitable way for it to confirm your claim/greivence

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Calling this "Employees organizing labour action" is just a euphemism to make this sound more sympathetic than it actually is.

really this is;

upper class, well paid knowledge workers use their privilege to enforce their avant garde cultural politics
on working class consumers.

maybe they will be successful but let's not act like they are Russian peasants revolting against the Czar.

 

[lobotomybeats]

I posted this in the NBA thread, but I should have posted it here. This a fantastic piece from Defector; the site owned and operated by the Deadspin writers that walked out. In my opinion, Defector is the most thoughtful, genuine sports blog around.

The Limits Of Dave Chappelle And Kyrie Irving’s Free-Thinking | Defector

The crucial question the left needs to examine is why its messaging is becoming more rigid even as it seems less appealing to so many; why black men in particular seem increasingly susceptible to alt-right-adjacent free-thinking; and how liberal orthodox thought is dovetailing with the...

defector.com

 

[RustyShackleford]

osh kosh bosh , maybe you should follow you what you said was Dave's advice...

read the article, it's totally fair and way more even handed than most of the critiques of Dave I've read.

by taking an excerpt and construing it in the most uncharitable way possible.



you're doing exactly what Dave has been criticizing in the last 3 specials.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

osh kosh bosh , maybe you should follow you what you said was Dave's advice...

What they are saying is pretty obvious,

assemble some group of people who agree with our politics. to make some judgment about future content.
and if you disagree with their judgment, what happens, the Netflix activist just accept that? or is time for another walkout?


increase employee's role in vetting future contents harmfulness,

and
"ensure we have best in class regional support on complicated intersectional diversity issues;"

is just another way of saying, "take advice from people who share our politics".
anyone who is studying intersectionality and went to a fancy enough school to be considered "best in class" shares their politics.

 

[RustyShackleford]

What they are saying is pretty obvious,

assemble some group of people who agree with our politics. to make some judgment about future content.
and if you disagree with their judgment, what happens, the Netflix activist just accept that? or is time for another walkout?


increase employee's role in vetting future contents harmfulness,

and
"ensure we have best in class regional support on complicated intersectional diversity issues;"

is just another way of saying, "take advice from people who share our politics".
anyone who is studying intersectionality and went to a fancy enough school to be considered "best in class" shares their politics.

I think it is pretty obvious to someone like you that wants their argument confirmed. I just don't see it.

They didn't even demand veto power over shows/content.

So they are demanding Netflix fall in line with their politics but not demanding a mechanism for them to enforce it? That just sounds stupid to me

Like I'm supposed to believe they are smart enough to hide their true intentions without explicitly saying it, but dumb enough to forget to ask for the power to make their plan work

Seems to me that they are saying that Netflix has to hear from more people before they greenlit stuff.

Hell the disclaimer before content seems like it would have been a better demand to cherry-pick and make a reach on if you want to paint the employees as just wanting Netflix to agree with their politics

 

[masagipatron]

Theo has a special?

Talk about failing upward.

I try to watch Theo’s standup, it’s tough. He’s not funny. I think he’s better at doing podcasts.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I think it is pretty obvious to someone like you that wants their argument confirmed. I just don't see it.

They didn't even demand veto power over shows/content.

So they are demanding Netflix fall in line with their politics but not demanding a mechanism for them to enforce it? That just sounds stupid to me

Like I'm supposed to believe they are smart enough to hide their true intentions without explicitly saying it, but dumb enough to forget to ask for the power to make their plan work

Seems to me that they are saying that Netflix has to hear from more people before they greenlit stuff.

Hell the disclaimer before content seems like it would have been a better demand to cherry-pick and make a reach on if you want to paint the employees as just wanting Netflix to agree with their politics

if someone holds a gun to your head and has a list of suggestions. are those suggestions or are they demands?

to me the obvious undercurrent of these suggestions is if you don't comply we will continue to embarrass you.

and we will have a document of some "person who shares our politics" detailing how Netflix is wrong.

What they are suggesting is basically unworkable. and absurd way to run a global content company.

it's creating a system to generate internal controversy, and unless the employee's consent to strict NDA's and no leaking or future demonstrations...
it's functionally handing the employees a veto over future content. even if they don't demand that in writing.


Maybe im being uncharitable, I think your being a bit too charitable.
Im guessing the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

IMO they include all this obfuscation and obviously fake caveats

"we are not offended,....but this content murders people"
"we don't want censorship....but if this content stays up people will die"
"I don't want chappelle banned...but netflix needs to do something"


no one wants to flat out say "this content is offensive and therefore it should be censored."
so they just imply it,


because they don't want to sound like the violent video games or the gangster rap hysterical white people from the 90's

but they are making the same arguments.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Ive said it previously, one of the demands is for more content created by trans and non-binary

Basically using this special as leverage for it

They dont want it taken down, surprise

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Ive said it previously, one of the demands is for more content created by trans and non-binary

Basically using this special as leverage for it

They dont want it taken down, surprise

Netflix responded to this controversy by highlighting LGBTQ content they've produced in the past

and people responded to that with scorn.


if Netflix committed today to produce a whole slate of pro-trans content, I really doubt it would assuage these people.

 

[HIM]

Damn, I was gonna wath Theo’s standup because he was always funny to me on the challenge and i’ve seen some funny youtube clips fom his podcast. Guess I’ll be skipping

 

[masagipatron]

You should try it, maybe you’ll like the special. I didn’t.

 

[Mark Antony]

Hey, maybe that's your thing. People loved Larry the Cable guy.

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

if someone holds a gun to your head and has a list of suggestions. are those suggestions or are they demands?

to me the obvious undercurrent of these suggestions is if you don't comply we will continue to embarrass you.

and we will have a document of some "person who shares our politics" detailing how Netflix is wrong.

What they are suggesting is basically unworkable. and absurd way to run a global content company.

it's creating a system to generate internal controversy, and unless the employee's consent to strict NDA's and no leaking or future demonstrations...
it's functionally handing the employees a veto over future content. even if they don't demand that in writing.


Maybe im being uncharitable, I think your being a bit too charitable.
Im guessing the truth lies somewhere in between.

-I don't think I am being overly charitable. I am not gonna agree to meet in the middle when I think even the middle ground you are suggesting involves me jumping to assumptions out of some sense of balance. And that is the thing, your arguments depend of people assuming the worse of these people.

AFTER

You complained over and over about progressive and Methodical Management assuming the worse of Dave, people that agree with him, and you.

Just like I said with the whole "boy" thing, I am not gonna respect someone claiming they have principled grievances out of one side of their mouth, then abandoning those principles once it fits them. If people want a good-faith discussion on this, it goes both ways, so I am not gonna see this letter and be like "oh yeah, these employees are acting in bad faith"

-The gun to the head metaphor seems silly because given what they said. They said if the below things are not put in place Netflix will continue to cause harm. The "we" they seem to refer to in Netflix as a company which includes the employee writing this letter

It does not read like an implicit threat for more embarrassment, it reads like a call to collectively do something different. They say Netflix will continue to go harm if they don't do the following. You can take issue with whether that statement is true or not, but I am not taking issue with something that doesn't seem implied in the letter.

-Is all of it is unworkable? Or are you taking issue with a few points to dismiss the whole thing? Are you still me investing more the certain content is unworkable to Netflix? To me, that is BS because Netflix openly stated they were doing that last summer after every company was trying to convince the public they would invest in more content from black creators, not like Netflix didn't have content with black actors and black creators before either. They can't headhunt and promote qualified transgender candidates to leadership positions?

Like in most labor disputes, big and small, I could assume it is not all or nothing situation. That the workers might know they probably won't get everything. But even if that isn't the case and they do, again, I am not assuming **** they didn't request.

Dude say you think some things are more workable than others, that is fair, but reading the list some stuff seems doable. And the second Netflix says they will engage with their demands, your argument falls apart. So you really taking the chance a company like Netflix hates bad PR is gonna completely dismiss these demands given what the CEO has already said?

Furthermore, nothing is in place right now, you have no processes to critique. Netflix could agree to consider the advice of employees and third parties and still greenlight what they want. The employees don't demand veto power in the letter. But I have to assume they snuck it in there somewhere

-Last thing, it is weird you separate someone's politics from their identity and the experiences they might have had because of being in a certain group. That this must be about liberal elites ****ting on the working-class people's consumer taste. It can't be about trans people and their allies trying to get their company to do better in a specific area. It can't be workers using some collective power to force what they see as positive changes. Nah, we gotta put the most uncharitable read on this. These are elites trying to force liberal manners on people.

The same article you posted from the Atlantic made a point that Dave was challenging this critic to think about power dynamics. When is he a black comedian and someone is cool, and when does he turn into a rich one and makes others uncool. So when do these people in your world ever get looked at as trans people that see a deficiency in at the place of their work and use this as a chance to get some gains?

I dunno, this argument seems to combine ****ty leftist politics of strictly looking at things through a class lens, and ****ty libertarian Chicago politics that if you don't like something the power mechanism you should employ is some Gary Becker voting with your feet steez and not work for Netflix.

-Just like I said with the firing of the employee, if there was concrete evidence of something I got no issue conceding the point. I might not agree with every single critic people have had on Dave and Netflix, but I haven't seen enough for me to make some sweeping negative judgment of most of the critics, and in this case specifically, the employee group. If things change, my take will change.

Right now though, I simply don't have the same hostility to a small subgroup of politics like you do, so I am not gonna give the more uncharitable read on someone's actions if it appears they align with the views of that small group.

 

[RustyShackleford]

IMO they include all this obfuscation and obviously fake caveats

"we are not offended,....but this content murders people"
"we don't want censorship....but if this content stays up people will die"
"I don't want chappelle banned...but netflix needs to do something"


no one wants to flat out say "this content is offensive and therefore it should be censored."
so they just imply it,


because they don't want to sound like the violent video games or the gangster rap hysterical white people from the 90's

but they are making the same arguments.

Again...

read the article, it's totally fair and way more even handed than most of the critiques of Dave I've read.

by taking an excerpt and construing it in the most uncharitable way possible.



you're doing exactly what Dave has been criticizing in the last 3 specials.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Again...

I think it's totally accurate characterization

Tarra, one of the boycott organizers said, "we are not offended," and then gave a long list of dead transwomen.
the obvious implication being? Dave's special --> Dead trans women no?

Jaycalyn More the dear white people creator said, "I don't want censorship" but in the next breath said "maybe taking down or amending the special" might the correct course of action.

They don't want to specifically demand censorship so they hide beyond obviously fake caveats that are invalidated by their following sentences.

"we aren't demanding dave be censored,..."

but you should involve the employees more in content decisions, and enlist the help of people whose politics we like to inform your decisions on potentially offensive content.

 

[gry60]

The comments are much more insightful than the article itself. This one in particular nails it:

I can’t remember if it was Slate or the Atlantic, but they had the best after thoughts on Chappelle. In an age of trying to recognize intersectionality and how it affects marginalized groups, Dave has no desire to interact with it at all. His worldview is that of a straight black guy, full stop. Interactions with other marginalized groups is cast as a zero sum game (hence his myopic view of LGBTQIA folks, not recognizing that a good deal of those folks he’s showing his *** to have to deal with racism too). That, and his comedy has never been all that insightful with regards to women, particularly black women. So what you have is a guy who has amazingly keen insights on the experience of black men…and not all that much on anything else.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

-I don't think I am being overly charitable. I am not gonna agree to meet in the middle when I think even the middle ground you are suggesting involves me jumping to assumptions out of some sense of balance. And that is the thing, your arguments depend of people assuming the worse of these people.
-The gun to the head metaphor seems silly because given what they said. They said if the below things are not put in place Netflix will continue to cause harm. The "we" they seem to refer to in Netflix as a company which includes the employee writing this letter

they are currently in the process of embarrassing Netflix.
why wouldn't they just run this jig again if Netflix doesn't give in to their demands?
and if Netflix does give in, isn't reasonable to assume that once Netflix generates all this paperwork with an approved activist saying Dave is harmful and transphobic.
If Netflix decides to air the special anyways, what happens do the activist employees just say oh well?

the obvious specter under all of this is if you don't agree, we are going to **** with your ****.
they are already ****ing with their ****, so the gun head metaphor seems apt.
which is a fine strategy, I just don't agree with the goal they are fighting for.

It does not read like an implicit threat for more embarrassment, it reads like a call to collectively do something different. They say Netflix will continue to go harm if they don't do the following. You can take issue with whether that statement is true or not, but I am not taking issue with something that doesn't seem implied in the letter.

"Netflix will continue to go harm if" to engage with that, it necessitates accepting their cultural politics.
it begs the question, is "netflix doing harm?" you need to accept their political viewpoint, as it's central to their demands.

-Is all of it is unworkable? Or are you taking issue with a few points to dismiss the whole thing? Are you still me investing more the certain content is unworkable to Netflix? To me, that is BS because they openly stated they were doing that last summer after every company was trying to convince the public they would invest in more content from black creators, not like Netflix didn't have content with black actors and black creators before either. They can't headhunt and promote qualified transgender candidates to leadership positions?

The sections I highlighted are totally unworkable if your goal is to be a globally successful and dominant content company,

if you want more trans people in content acquisition, and trans led tv shows okay fine that sounds good to me.
more money for trans content, im there with you

but they want the trans netflix employee group to have a role in content?
and they want Netflix to bring on progressive academics to advise them on what is and isn't harmful?

it's a global content company, you cannot produce compelling content for a global audience if you are running it through a filter of rich college educated American progressives.
like why should a trans data scientist, or trans HR employee have any say on any content?

and creating some official Netflix paper work where some activist consultant just generates memos that can be later used by those same activists to embarrass you.
it's like paying to generate your own black mail.

it's just building systems to ensure no content is released that doesn't align with their politics.
They say from the jump it's to prevent future "platforming of hate speech" but that only makes sense if you share their political viewpoint that the special is hate speech.

Like in most labor disputes, big and small, I could assume it is not all or nothing situation. That the workers might know they probably won't get everything. But even if that isn't the case and they do, again, I am not assuming **** they didn't request.

Dude say you think some things are more workable than others, that is fair, but reading the list some stuff seems doable. And the second Netflix says they will engage with their demands, your argument falls apart. So you really taking the chance a company like Netflix hates bad PR is gonna completely dismiss these demands given what the CEO has already said?

Furthermore, nothing is in place right now, you have no processes to critique. Netflix could agree to consider the advice of employees and third parties and still greenlight what they want. The employees don't demand veto power in the letter. But I have to assume they snuck it in there somewhere

like I said, they have the right to try and influence their work in any way they want.
im not saying it's wrong to force concessions from you employer.

I disagree with their politics, some of the goals are laudable. but the overall politics behind it i can't rock with.

-Last thing, it is weird you separate someone's politics from their identity and the experiences they might have had because of being in a certain group. That this must be about liberal elites ****ting on the working-class people's consumer taste. It can't be about trans people and their allies trying to get their company to do better in a specific area. It can't be workers using some collective power to force what they see as positive changes. Nah, we gotta put the most uncharitable read on this. These are elites trying to force liberal manners on people.

The same article you posted from the Atlantic made a point that Dave was challenging this critic to think about power dynamics. When is he a black comedian and someone is cool, and when does he turn into a rich one and makes others uncool. So when do these people in your world ever get looked at as trans people that see a deficiency in at the place of their work and use this as a chance to get some gains?

I dunno, this argument seems to combine ****ty leftist politics of strictly looking at things through a class lens, and ****ty libertarian Chicago politics that if you don't like something the power mechanism you should employ is some Gary Becker voting with your feet steez and not work for Netflix.

-Just like I said with the firing of the employee, if there was concrete evidence of something I got no issue conceding the point. I might not agree with every single critic people have had on Dave and Netflix, but I haven't seen enough for me to make some sweeping negative judgment of most of the critics, and in this case specifically, the employee group. If things change, my take will change.

Right now though, I simply don't have the same hostility to a small subgroup of politics like you do, so I am not gonna give the more uncharitable read on someone's actions if it appears they align with the views of that small group.

Im sure these people believe they are fighting on the side of right for a just cause.
but my whole thing is that upper class progressive have biases and blind spots that can be self perpetuating.

I don't even trust that these activist actually have a good gage on what working class say trans people think about these things.
Id actually love to see a poll of working class trans black sex workers (since they are so often used as the victims in all this) think about this.

but modern discourse shields actions from scrutiny, when you exaggerate claims of harm to stifle debate
it let's you delude yourself into believing you are fighting for a just cause when in truth you're perpetuating your own privilege,

 

[RustyShackleford]

I think it's totally accurate characterization

Tarra, one of the boycott organizers said, "we are not offended," and then gave a long list of dead transwomen.
the obvious implication being? Dave's special --> Dead trans women no?

Jaycalyn More the dear white people creator said, "I don't want censorship" but in the next breath said "maybe taking down or amending the special" might the correct course of action.

They don't want to specifically demand censorship so they hide beyond obviously fake caveats that are invalidated by their following sentences.

"we aren't demanding dave be censored,..."

but you should involve the employees more in content decisions, and enlist the help of people whose politics we like to inform your decisions on potentially offensive content.

yah I disagree

I think is a totally accurate characterization if you want it to confirm your previously held views.

-Terra Feild's Twitter didn't seem to argue Dave's special directly leads to dead trans women. (Well dead trans women of color)

I seem to remember her argument was that society doesn't value the life of trans women of color, they are a general hostility toward them. That manifest itself as real-life violence

And that the general hostility in society is fed by a lot of stuff, including stuff like Dave's special. So it is not a direct cause, just it feeds the beast that already exists

To me it doesn't seem like she is arguing a direct casual relationship, but that it is a contributing factor in creating an environment that produces bad outcomes

I buy this, makes sense to me. Also, I would be more skeptical if I hadn't seen it myself already. My girl is a social worker, she works on getting temporary and permanent shelter for victims of DV, mothers facing homelessness, sex workers, etc. She has transgender clients from time to time. She tells me all the time what nonsense she gotta deal with at her job, and how trying to help transgender clients present unique challenges.

She told me she already had a client that got hit with the beyond meat joke, and that was from another person in the damn shelter they put her in. My girl called this would happen too, because in her words no one that had progressive views on transgender people would feel validated by instances of grace Dave showed forward to them. But the people with some hostilities toward transgender individuals would definitely feel validated by his jokes and how he aired his grievances with his critics.

I don't think Dave is a bigot, he is not responsible for other people's bigotry, he is not directly responsible for people's crimes. But some of the material in his special could definitely validate someone's ****ty views.

I feel the Closer was more about Dave's issues with his critics, it was about his feelings. And he insisted that the situation should be looked at through a certain racial lens. When it comes to race issues, Dave can be very insightful, he is very aware of the racial dynamics in America. His views are probably closer to progressive elites in that area than working-class white people.

By insisting on that framing he handwaves the fact he is also rich and famous. Dave is an elite too, he has influence, he can't escape that. And what he said about transgender people was not that insightful, to me kinda lazy, and I can definitely see why many would find it offensive

 

[osh kosh bosh]

yah I disagree

I think is a totally accurate characterization if you want it to confirm your previously held views.

-Terra Feild's Twitter didn't seem to argue Dave's special directly leads to dead trans women. (Well dead trans women of color)

I seem to remember her argument was that society doesn't value the life of trans women of color, they are a general hostility toward them. That manifest itself as real-life violence

And that the general hostility in society is fed by a lot of stuff, including stuff like Dave's special. So it is not a direct cause, just it feeds the beast that already exists

To me it doesn't seem like she is arguing a direct casual relationship, but that it is a contributing factor in creating an environment that produces bad outcomes

maybe im dumb, but this sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

imo it doesn't really make a difference if you say Dave's comedy leads to dead transwomen via 5 bank shots instead of 4 banks.
it's the same connection you are drawing.

"Grand Theft Auto leads to an environment that generates more hostility, sex workers and people of colour.
and that manifest itself in real life violence."

it seems to pretty obvious the implication is less grant theft auto, less dave less violence.

and Jaycyn Moore said right after claiming to not want censorship.
" I don’t know what Netflix should do, but I feel something needs to be done. Whether that’s removing part of this special, whether that’s amending the special in some way, I don’t know. "

I don't think my characterization, that they claim to not want censorship,
but then make subsequent statements that imply a need for censorship is incorrect.