it doesn't need to.
again yes you can't take away the most famous comedians in Americas livelihood.
but every other comedian or artist on the planet has to constantly be calculating and self editing.
and I can promise you that mindset does not produce good art. if you don't care about that, that's cool. but I do.
Do you.
I simply don't care to the degree you do
I don't think a free for is a mandatory condition to have good "art"
"using trans people as a punchline?"
In the Closer Dave basically agrees with 99% of what trans activist while applying the same brand of comedy he has applied to every topic and minority group under the sun,
This is using trans people as a punchline?
(Dave Chappelle does not have elite cultural politics, hence the current drama surrounding him)
Dave compares being trans to blackface, and compares the genitalia of some trans women to beyond meat. Trans activist outchea saying stuff like this too? Damn, didn't know this
Dude, you want to use the positive things Dave said to dismiss the offensive things he said. I simply can't rock with that argument. Yes he said some good things, but he said some clearly offensive things regarding them too
Around 99% of Bill Maher says probably agrees with probably what black activists think too. She still says dumb **** too.
Dave definitely used trans people as a part of the punchline a point in the special as well
This whole elite politics thing you keep bringing out is unconvincing to me. Just seems like a brand of leftist politics I really don't rock with. It muddles the dynamics at play here in a way that is convenient for your argument, Dave, and his defenders.
BTW, would I be a cultural elite too? I can't tell
Also, does Dave politics on race seem to closely align with the views of the cultural elite. So is that an issue? Or does the views of the cultural elite shrink to exclude Dave on that subject?
imo if it's unacceptable, than Dave has always been unacceptable.
and IMO dave's comedy for all it's flaws has been on net a positive contribution to the art of stand up comedy
and so it does bother me that a similarly talented and provocative comedian couldn't rise in todays speech climate.
Sure Dave comedy as been a net positive to stand-up, I would agree, but two things
a) The contributions to stand-up are not gonna be the prime consideration to a lot of people. I am not that sympathetic to the protect art over everything argument.
b) You are making the judgment on aggregate. Weighing the good against whatever bad (and there definitely probably been some bad given Dave's own admission regarding white people laughing at the stereotypes on the Chapelle Show). Other people might not think on aggregate the good outweighs the bad. Someone could take Dave's career into consideration and think it is a net negative
So people can take issue with certain things he says and agree with others.
Society speech codes change from generation to generation. Comedians have never enjoyed blanket impunity when violating them. Consumer taste changes, the market changes. When it comes to reaching mainstream success, these are all the things comedians (service providers) in a market have to adapt to.
I get the small margin of error makes life harder for some comedians, but again, this phenomenon has been happening for generations. I feel the talented ones will figure it out in some way