- Jul 19, 2012
- 8,713
- 14,889
So this dude has officially become the mascot for homophobia. Not a good look.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
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,
as I said I fixate on this class and education issue because I think it's harmful to marginalized people.
This is where this stuff reminds me of violent video games or rap music hysteria.
Yes art can be used to validate people's ****ty views...and?
does that mean art has to strain to ensure that in no way validate peoples ****ty views?
that seems to require a level of lawyerly precisions that seems like like a recipe for bad art.
Like I know racists who love The Wire and found a way to use that to validate their racist view points and that's prob the most anti racist tv show ever made.
the idea that someone out there can use a piece of art to validate their ****ty views is not surprising or require censorship.
like I said I def don't think the Closer was dave at his sharpest, and yes I agree Dave has many blindspots.
but I think it's okay of comedians are unartful or crude or flat out wrong about many important things.
and it seems like many people (not you) find this intolerable.
-The rap music and violent video game hysteria were closer to the modern-day CRT hysteria than what I am doing. Me nor my girl is calling for Dave to be banned or his special taken down so spare me. Barbara Bush, Nacy Reagan, and the conservatives of the 80s and 90s had zero interest in improving the material conditions of inner-city minorities or sex workers.
I feel this is a disingenuous comparison that when deployed that strips a ton of context of what those people were doing and what I ama doing
-And in regard to validating ****ty views, we should acknowledge that. That this is just not jokes, that art doesn't exist in a vacuum as simply art.
And Dave's special wasn't strictly an art performance. I don't think we can just use the excuse of Dave's bad takes because he did it during a stand-up routine. He tried to give some insight on a social and political issue, it is fair game to talk about the ramifications of doing so.
Furthermore, like I can appreciate what Gone with the Wind and Birth of a Nation did for the film industry, how as films how they did something better or revolutionary for their time
But they are also both works of white supremacist propaganda, which I feel is important for people to understand too. I think that is part of their story as pieces of art. They fell out of public favor with a group of people because one aspect of it became more salient than the other.
Society's only concern should not be about ensuring we get the best art possible whenever. Sure an artist needs some leeway to operate but there needs to be a line,
If James Cameron said he wanted to make a modern-day Gone with the Wind, and a studio gonna give him a blank check, I am sure that he would do something with world-building and cinematography. I also would feel that the world doesn't need a new Lost Cause propaganda piece in 2021.
There needs to be a line, I don't think burying our heads in the sand is the only way to guarantee good art.
WTF does this have to do with what I said. I didn't come close to arguing Dave should be censored. I am not gonna offer defenses for **** I didn't say.
My post pretty much is saying "this will naturally happen given what was said, Dave could have done better".
They are also providers of service looking for compensation. Since you are concerned about offending consumer preferences, then you should be able to acknowledge that a change in market conditions is something every business/firm/supplier/service provider has to deal with. So backlash from being unartful and crude is a market condition they have to deal with.
You should try reading something other than Pro Wrestling IllustratedNo way yall are reading what each other are saying.
Good oneYou should try reading something other than Pro Wrestling Illustrated
I dunno why paragraphs scare you
Be respectful..Nobody reads PWI anymore..It's all about the Wrestling Observer Newsletter these days..You should try reading something other than Pro Wrestling Illustrated
I dunno why paragraphs scare you
Why would or should I expect anything else?The comments are much more insightful than the article itself. This one in particular nails it:
The comments are much more insightful than the article itself. This one in particular nails it:
Homophobia? This don't got anything to do with gay ppl.So this dude has officially become the mascot for homophobia. Not a good look.
(German cop stopping the Nazi salute)
There definitely are some thoughts and opinions I disagree with that I don't want other people to have.
Yeah but there shouldn't be anything you could be able to do about that other than complain (obviously not including hate speech and inciting violence).Yea people keep using "freedom of discourse" to normalize the opinions of obviously crappy human beings. There are definitely opinions I don't want people having.
Yea people keep using "freedom of discourse" to normalize the opinions of obviously crappy human beings. There are definitely opinions I don't want people having.
Does the fact that peoples intentions maybe more noble make the arguments more compelling or reasonable?
and while Ill grant your point that many white people we're disingenuous about there concerns about 90's rap music, im 100% sure there we're parents who legitimately thought it was harmful, **** my parents did.
I think while the motivations are different I think the arguments are at bottom basically the same.
i don't have a problem with people who think Dave set is offensive or transphobic.
like i said from the jump it's a fair criticism.
i don't think people should put their heads in the sand. my beef id the leap to censorship. (im not saying you are arguing this, the netflix walkout people imo are)
I was just trying to understand, what is the next step? yes people can take art to justify ****ty behavior. is that really a reasonable argument against it?
if you wanna say the ideas are bad, or you think the person is wrong, okay
but my thing is it seems like you think we should judge it by it's potential to be used by bad actors unless im misreading you.
to me it seems like a pointless standard, and limits artistic expression to what the dumbest people in socitey can misinterpret.
I've acknowledge throughout this whole thing that they could win, and perhaps and excise Dave's comedy from public consumption.
I just think that's bad.
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.
Is it possible to understand the principle of what he's saying but that he also spent so much time on it in a fit of petulance so no one should be surprised by the reaction?Is it possible to understand (not necessarily agree) the principle of what Dave is saying, without thinking he and his content is transphobic or homophobic, etc.?
People are legit scared to talk about his stand-up at work now.
Homophobia? This don't got anything to do with gay ppl.