In a story out of Springfield Elementary School in Des Moines, IA, 9-year-old Max Hannagan, who was suspended for verbally harassing his fellow third graders, has now claimed he was just āpushing boundariesā with his comedy.
āDid I caw Jimmy a loser? Yes,ā Max told reporters while rocking ba
I think I donāt want to pay to see his show.
When a comedian says shit that bullies others and youāre uncomfortable with that youāre obligated to pay to see the show and laugh at all of the jokes. If you donāt, youāre guilty of the crime of ācancel cultureā which means youāre a terrible person for not watching things you donāt like.
Donāt you understand comedy? The audience doesnāt decide whatās funny, old comedians go on Joe Rogan and tell you whatās funny. Then you must laugh at the jokes that have been decided are the funny by the comedy authorities. Thatās just how comedy works.
Laugh when youāre told to laugh and nobody has to get hurt. Well except for trans people but the comedy authorities have decided thatās funny and we must never question the comedy authorities. Comedy is a deadly serious business and itās more important than anything else in this world!
Cancel culture is when you cross the line of not enjoying something yourself over into attempting to stop others from making their own determination, by preventing them from experiencing it before they could do so. It is the most extreme form of censorship, not merely (helpfully?) labelling but attempting to drive out of existence the recipient. Similarly, free speech has exemptions for harm e.g. defamation.
To use an example, I have not heard Chappelle say something fully anti-trans, so much as āwhite trans people are still white, and police in Texas will allow them to continue to breathe, while black people can never be anything other than blackā. If the comedy gods or whatever have deemed that Chappelle must die, well, he seems to be okay with that, but he will never stop advocating for his own cause, which is that POC deserve toā¦ (checks notes) breathe air.
That said, he may be slightly anti-trans in the sense that while he may choose to use othersā preferred pronouns as a gesture of friendliness, that does not mean that those can rightfully be DEMANDED at will - our rights end where someone elseās begins, and all that jazz. He has far too many stories how, as a black man in the entertainment business, too many things were TAKEN from him by force, to now enjoy having to give it up to a new minority that is getting all of the attention while black peopleā¦ hey did you know that BREONNA TAYLOR WAS FUCKING SLEEPING!?
BTW I have never once listened to any show by Joe Rogan, ever, and I do not intend to start now:-) -
and you too should never listen to that racist SOB either(that is the difference between opinion vs cancelling, imho:-D).Dave Chappelle has been ācancelledā twice. If cancel culture was real it wouldnāt be possible to be cancelled twice. He wouldāve been cancelled once and we wouldnāt hear about him again.
So the first time Dave Chappelle was cancelled, I thought āwell Iām going to watch his comedy special and see what the fuss is all aboutā. I mostly remember him whining about how bad it is his friend didnāt get to host the Oscars. The most Hollywood problem ever. Yeah, thatās something I can relate to, Dave.
The second time Dave Chapelle was cancelled, I was busy at the time so it was like āwhat happened there? whatever I got other shit to doā and kinda forget about it. Then a few days later I turned on Netflix, and you know how they show the top ten rated things on there sometimes? What did I see in that list? New Dave Chappelle comedy special. I thought āHold on, how is this possible? I heard Dave Chappelle was cancelled!ā How is it possible that Dave Chappelle have a new comedy special on Netflix on the same week he was cancelled? Not only that, how is it in the top ten rated things on Netflix?
Then I realized something. This motherfucker is playing us for fools. Yeah I got suckered the first time he got cancelled. I watched the special myself so I could judge for myself what it was about. Chappelle got an additional view from me. He got paid from the ratings he got from people like me wanting to find out why he was cancelled.
So I checked the autoplay preview thing for his comedy special the second time he got cancelled. Thereās some normal jokes, but then thereās a beatā¦ ominous musicā¦ āfolks I have to talk to you all about something serious.ā FFS. I donāt watch comedy specials so I can hear about what wealthy hollywood assholes think are serious issues. Just be funny, itās your fucking job, dude.
So no, I didnāt watch Chappelleās comedy special the second time he was cancelled. But it was one of the top rated things on Netflix that week, so a lot of other people did.
So what does it mean to be ācancelledā nowadays? It used to be a show was cancelled and that was it, no more show. But now it means there is a still a show on. Does it mean people donāt watch the show? Nope Chappelle got good ratings according to Netflix. So what does it mean to be cancelled?
It seems like being cancelled is when people on the internet criticizes a wealthy established hollywood asshole. To me this cancel culture thing seems to be more about silencing criticism. Though in Chappelleās case, it looks to me like heās gaming it. He sprinkles in a few jokes about an at risk group, gets ācancelledā for it and gets a bunch of people to watch his comedy special. Heās done this twice now.
And I donāt like this pattern. Getting ācancelledā makes him money. It seems more akin to those shit āprankā videos where someone does something thatās complete shit, but even if a bunch of people hate-watch it they still make money from it. This isnāt a good direction for comedy.
And itās really disappointing. A guy like Bill Maher playing the ācancelā culture grift I can understand. Heās a talentless hack. But Dave Chappelle? That guy has actual talent. He doesnāt need to sink to the level of Bill Maher.
But I guess Dave Chappelle has had too much money for too long. Whining about his friend not being able to host the oscars as if thatās something the audience can relate to. Heās in the Hollywood bubble now where they start thinking like the audience is the enemy. Like Bill Maher, heās probably going to rely more and more on para-social relationships with fans that trick themselves into thinking heās their friend while he rants about how the audience is bad. āYeah, tell us more about how the audiences are bad! Me? No, Iām not the audience Iām his best friend (in my parasocial fantasies). Me and you against them!ā
Itās sad, Dave Chappelle has chosen to take the Bill Maher career path.
You have some points there, but there are some crucial (imho) details that I feel like you are just rushing headlong over, which matter. Even so, if you donāt want to watch him, then donāt - itās as simple as that:-). And I hope you feel free to share your opinion as well, and that we can politely & respectfully discuss that, if you want, as we are doing now:-).
For one, ābeing cancelledā is not the same as āan attempt was made to cancel himā. Similarly, if he lost out on certain opportunities that he was slated to have - like an opportunity was already extended to him to do something (like host the oscars, or whatever) but then that offer was rescinded - then that would represent a partial rather than full kind of cancelling. In that case, they attempted to cancel him, and did partially manage it by cancelling one of his things, without fully ending either his life or his career. And btw, there was a lot of talk about how Chappelle was basically the first and at the time only person to ever survive such a concerted attempt at being cancelled, so there was likely a lot of fear at the time that he too would become yet another casualty, but then damn somehow he managed to overcome. That was not the expected outcome though - so itās like all those weather reporters saying that a hurricane or rain is 90% likely to hit an area, but then it does not. Oh well. Even so, was the preemptive warning wrong to have been said in the first place, under those conditions?
And yeah, in any case heās definitely working the system (or at least attempting to), in order to garner sympathy for himself. But that by itself does not mean that he is lying about the events in question? I am sorry that you feel betrayed butā¦ why assume the absolute worst, especially since as you say, you havenāt even listened to his side of it? Donāt listen if you donāt want toā¦ but since you are talking about it, why not educate yourself about it first?
Bill Maher is indeed a talentless hack - but Chappelle is really good, and worth the investment (imho) to find out if heās still worth listening to. Steven Colbert you can tell has also become too powerful to be relatable to me anymore - he says things and people just instantly agree, and heās lost that genuineness that he used to have, itās so sad, a victim of his own success:-(. It is really difficult to maintain humility when you become successful, and I would say likely impossible to do alone, without help from others in their lives to keep them in check. Jon Stewart managed to do it, but nonetheless itās so rare.
Fwiw, I donāt watch Chappelle b/c I can relate to him personally - Iām not black for one, nor famous, nor rich, etc. - but I enjoy him b/c (1) heās funny:-), and (2) he gives me insight into other aspects of life that otherwise I might not understand. e.g. his story about being a black straight man in Texas when a white trans person decided to harass him - THEY can call the cops, being āpassingā, and fully rest secure in the knowledge that they will survive the encounter. I said it before but daaaayum, BREONNA TAYLOR WAS SLEEPING!!! I like how he has the courage to say how āthe other sideā feels about the trans situation, and I like to think that even if I was trans that I would feel the same way, b/c itās helpful for the back-and-forth discussion process for someone to step up and articulate clearly what the core values are of each side - crucially with the caveat that so long as it is done respectfully. And how he says it is this: YOU can do whatever YOU want, but *I* should be allowed to do that too.
But what does āmade an attempt to cancel himā? Expressing that you donāt like someone? I think criticism is covered by freedom of speech.
If other people see someone saying āDave Chappelle sucks nowā and then thinks āyeah, I think this person is right, he does suck!ā Is that wrong? I think thatās just freedom of thought isnāt it?
The whole anti-cancel culture thing seems to be āI donāt like it when people say they donāt like the things I like.ā But thatās just a consequence of free speech isnāt it? People are going to say things you disagree with.
TV shows have always been cancelled and itās always been for one of two reasons. 1) low ratings and 2) advertisers donāt want to be associated with someone or something. Either way itās because of lack of revenue. Itās business.
Itās no different today. People stop watching something because they donāt like it. Show gets cancelled.
So they question is, are there unacceptable reasons for not liking something? I donāt know how to tell you this, but when Iām watching TV, Iāll change the channel for all kinds of arbitrary reasons. I donāt like that guyās hair cut click this looks boring click eh, itās ok but thereās probably something else thatās better on click. Everyone of these arbitrary decisions by the audience could result in a show getting low ratings and getting cancelled. But then itās like āI heard on the internet this guy is an assholeā suddenly weāre all getting upset over how show business works?
Remember a long time ago Rock Hudson got cancelled for being gay. None of this is new. Itās just more well documented. And the reasons for people not liking a celebrity has changed, but I think for the better. Youāre not going to be cancelled for being gay now, but maybe youāll get cancelled for being an asshole to other people.
And with streaming people are more willing to switch to something else because thereās always a thousand other things you could be watching. And you can start those shows from the beginning whereas before with broadcast TV you would be starting a show from the middle when you change channels. So thereās more competition and show business is more cut throat.
But at the end of the day itās solely a Hollywood problem. If we completely remove para-social relationships from the equation, then we can think of Hollywood as being a group of monkeys dancing on a stage. Someone in the audience says āthat monkey on the left displeases meā and the monkey trainer takes the monkey off the stage and puts another one out there instead. Where is the issue with this? Well it sucks for the monkey I guess, but what impact does it have on society? Not all that much.
They arenāt curing cancer out in Hollywood, they arenāt actually doing anything important. If a show gets poor ratings because the didnāt market it well and so it gets cancelled itās the exact same impact on society as when a show gets cancelled when it loses ratings because people stop watching because one of the stars said something stupid on the internet. In either scenario people that liked the show wonāt get more show, and that sucks I guess. But there will be another show put on TV in itās place, weāll still have entertainment, so it doesnāt matter all that much does it?
But a lot of people in Hollywood are narcissists, and to a narcissist being famous makes them important. They speak like theyāre important people. And to a famous narcissist the thought of no longer being famous is the worst thing that could ever happen to them. But theyāre not important people. But theyāll talk about cancel culture as if it is important because to a famous narcissist it is the most important thing to them. But for the rest of society itās not actually important. But those para-social relationship with the celebrities who are saying itās important issue leads some people in the audience to think itās important. But it really isnāt. A show getting cancelled has the same impact on society regardless of the reason itās cancelled, and that impact to society isnāt very much. Theyāll just put another show on, no big deal.
Of course thereās this whole thing where entertainment and politics have somewhat merged into one thing. Celebrities are politicians and politicians are celebrities now. And that is something that is actually bad for society. People are being politically influenced by their para-social relationships with celebrities. Celebrities that live a weird Hollywood bubble far removed from the problems of the audience. They can exploit these para-social relationships to convince people prioritize issues that impact celebrities over issues that impact themselves.
I remember Bill Burr on a podcast whining about Gina Coranno being fired for saying stupid shit on the internet. When he was doing that, there were two million people that were unemployed. but since they were unemployed for reasons other than saying stupid shit on the internet the issue of Gina Coranno being fired was 2 million times more important than someone else being unemployed? Strange isnāt it? And considering Hollywood people use the internet to promote the shows theyāre in, social media is part of the workplace isnāt it? Saying stupid shit in the workplace gets non-hollywood people fired, but they donāt need to behave professionally in the workplace like everyone else does? Why? Because theyāre famous and therefore important than everyone else?
Really the only problem with cancel culture is thereās not enough of it. Hollywood people should know their place. Weāre the audience, weāre paying them, weāre more important than they are. Guy working as waiter in LA dreaming of becoming an actor someday is contributing more to society than if his dreams come true and he actually becomes an actor in a big movie.
Theyāre just monkeys dancing for our amusement. We should consider them to be interchangeable. Because they are.
Once again some good points and yetā¦ missing the most crucial details, imho. Yes, criticism is covered by free speech (except somehow when Dave Chappelle does itā¦?:-P). Yes, thinking that someone sucks is just freedom of speech. Yes changing the channel is 100% your ārightā - except when TVs start changing to now not let you do so during an ad:-(.
The main difference between free speech and cancel cultureā¦ - well, first a digression:
Freedom of speech does not apply to television, radio, or social media in the same manner. Like if I broke into your house and screamed into your ear all night long āHEY, WAKE UP AND FEED YOUR CAT!ā (especially if you donāt have a cat!?:-P), that would be weird, right? I can scream that way inside my own house - caveat: so long as it somehow that does not negatively impact my neighboring community - but not as a guest elsewhere.
Thatās what makes censorship and even more so cancel culture so weird. Dave does not have the right to do anything at all, on e.g. Netflix - all he can do is make a show and try to sell it or give it away. And Netflix has the full ārightā to not show his show, presuming that there is not stipulation somewhere in the contract between them saying otherwise.
But the main difference between free speech and cancel culture is when some asshat makes that decision for you - not even allowing you to see it in order to make up your own mind first. Watching a show and hitting the little downvote icon is NOT cancel culture - though brigading by getting thousands of people to go there and do specifically that WITHOUT FIRST WATCHING THE SHOW - would be an attempt to destroy at least the ratings of the show, in order to attempt to mess up the recommendations (whether successful or not). It is abuse of the idea of censorship, away from āhey he is doing something objectively wrong, or at least in violation of the commonly-accepted standards of conductā into becoming, as you say āhey, this guy said something that I did not care for - letās DESTROY HIMā.
Sometimes things get complicated b/c unintelligent people can act unintelligently at times - e.g. they may say that they want to do things, and call it e.g. ācancellingā, but thatās not necessarily what ācancellingā actually means. Turning the channel away from someone isnāt ācancellingā, itās just that you personally donāt like it. Getting someone fired from their job is ācancellingā. And btw, cancelling is not always āwrongā - getting someone fired who LEGIT NEEDS to be fired can be a good thing. So like a parent turning the channel away from Comedy Central whenever Chappelle comes on, specifically in order to block their kids from seeing it - thatās a form of cancelling, at least within that household? And in that context, it might not be bad, if his form of comedy is deemed detrimental to the mental health of the children.
Where it crosses a line, imho, is when someone writes to the means of delivery - a TV station, or in this case Netflix - and tries to get him banned from being seen by everyone, even when some of us wanted to be able to see it. How does him being banned increase MY freedoms? Me being able to change the channel whenever I choose is my freedom, but someone else show-blocking meā¦ is the exact opposite, is it not?
Especially when it has nothing at all to do with revenue - b/c the show hasnāt even aired yet.
And ironically, that is Chappelleās whole schtick about the trans community: asking other people to use preferred pronounds = totally fine and Iāll do that out of an abundance of friendliness, b/c thatās just how I roll b/c I am awesome, but DEMANDING that I use it? Thatās where the line is crossed - shouldnāt I also have some freedoms too, especially inside my own head?
As for it being relatable, please remember that this is a major issue happening all across America, in schools and workplace environments and everything else. Teachers are literally being fired for not using kidsā preferred pronouns. I donāt know why you are not seeing it where you are - if you are retired and donāt watch much news or what - but it is EVERYWHERE lately. And now it has spread to books in libraries too, with some people legit and I mean fully literally burning books, yes with actual full-on fire. It is one thing to turn the page and simply choose to not read them, but it has graduated now to the āthose should not exist at allā phase.
Also I disagree that Hollywood has zero impact on the rest of our culture - e.g. if someone made a vaccine against old age, but millions of people refused to take it, but then a TV show made the situation more relatable to people, Hollywood can have more impact than science itself, at least in the boots-on-the-ground sense. I guess it would be the E in STEM in that case, for Education I mean rather than merely Entertainment.
Comedy in particular causes us to question ourselves, and may impact e.g. voting behaviors, and thereby relates to real life. And all of that on top of the merging of Hollywood & political thinking.
I hope this helps you see what I see?
This is the old āWell you canāt say X anymoreā fallacy. You can. You just did. Itās really āYou canāt say X anymore without people criticizing you for it.ā Yeah, thatās just how the right to free speech works. Dave Chappelle has the right to say what he wants. Other people have the right to criticize him for it. People have a right to not watch his comedy special. Netflix has the right to decide to not buy what heās selling. Everyone has their rights, but why is it only some violation of rights when it negatively affects a celebrity? Why is that more of a concern than when Chappelle uses his rights in a way that negatively impacts Trans people? Why is he the one thatās so special that no one is allowed to exercise their right in a way that negatively impacts him?
Why is this a problem? Itās just a TV show, why does it matter?
Teachers are being fired for emotionally abusing children? Thatās what it is, right?
If you were a boy in school and your teacher was constantly calling you a sissy girl. When told to stop the teacher refuses, because āthatās what I see that kid as, nothing but a sissy girl. Itās MUH RIGHT to call anyone I want a sissy girl if thatās how I think of them!ā Would you think, oh well, thatās cool, thatās the kind of attitude someone entrusted with the development of children should have.
Come on, you know the teacher would be fired for calling a cis boy a girl. People have a right to think how they want, but when youāre in a workplace you have to be a professional. If you canāt behave like a professional in the workplace, you get fired. Just how things work.
Itās sad to me how politics have eroded the concept of workplace professionalism. Used to be there was a rule about the three things you donāt talk about at work: sex, religion, and politics. But now thatās been labelled as wokeism or whatever, and people think they have the right to be an asshole in the workplace. Well if your employer has the right to fire you, then they can exercise that right. I have the right to walk into bossās office tomorrow and tell him heās an asshole. And I can do that and no one can stop me. But itās probably not a good career move, is it?
And then thereās that time someone got all passive aggressive at me for referring to them as a they/them. Like, Iām sorry Pat, weāre communicating over email, I donāt know your pronouns unless you tell me. Until you indicate your pronouns I have no other option but to refer to you as a they/them. I understand youāre in a red state, Pat, but pronouns are just words, either put them next to your name or be cool about people that have never met you in person calling you they/them. FFS I donāt actually give a shit about anyoneās gender when Iām at work but I do need to type something to someone else saying āPatās account seems to be locked, could you reset ___ password?ā I gotta put something in that blank, Pat. Help me fill in that blank, ok?
Ok sorry ofr the rant, but the politics around the pronouns are stupid to me. I work with emails and when someone puts their pronouns next to their name (especially when their name is ambiguous) Iām like alright, youāre helping me out there. If there werenāt so many stupid poiltics around this it would make things easier in the workplace for people that communicate over email. Makes things a lot less awkward, but dumb politics prevents people from doing something thatās useful even in scenarios where there are no Trans people involved. Itās like weāre making things more difficult for everyone just to spite trans people.
Do people not have the right to write to Netflix? Does Netflix not have the right to decide what they want to put on their streaming service?
Once again, weāre still in a place where Dave Chappelleās rights matter more than other peopleās rights. The thing about rights is, everyone has them. And many times people will exercise their rights in ways you donāt approve of. To some people the way Dave Chappelle exercises hist rights crosses the line. For you, people writing to Netflix crossed the line. But these lines are all subjective.
So why do people think Dave Chappelleās rights takes precedence over other peopleās rights? Itās just down to para-social behavior. People feeling like Dave Chappelle is their friend so they should stick up for him. If you donāt have any trans people as friends then you donāt feel like sticking up for them.
And thereās the rub. Itās why trans people get targeted. Not many trans people around so most people donāt have any trans people as friends. The whole trans thing is confusing and uncomfortable. Thereās a surgery involved. Thereās a feeling that trans people are trying to trick us into being gay. If you had no morals and needed a convenient target of hatred to manipulate people, which group is the easiest target? Itās trans people. Itās always trans people. Itās the group they always go after first.
Depending on the style of comedy, it can be a part of a comedianās job to understand culture. With Dave Chappelleās comedy style thatās definitely the case. Heās not doing Norm MacDonald style comedy where heās pretending to be the dumbest guy in the room while actually being the smartest guy in the room being meta with anyone knowing. Heās not Conan OāBrien doing some silly things. His comedy is about commentary on culture and relating to the audience. If he canāt understand the cultural impact of the things heās saying, heās being incompetent at his job.
This is not a good thing. How many people died because they listened to Joe Rogan and took horse de-wormer instead of the covid vaccine? We canāt know the number but Iām certain that number is not zero. Yes, celebrities can affect positive change. But they can also create negative change. Having narcissists living in the Hollywood bubble be the arbiters of truth isnāt actually a good thing for society. At one time guys like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite were the arbiters of truth. Now some coked up actor at an orgy with underage boys mashes 280 characters into their iPhone is what determines whatās real for us now. While Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite may have gotten a few things wrong in their careers, I donāt think what we have now is an improvement.
Also not a good thing. Two million people unemployed and Bill Burr thinks the most important issue is one Hollywood person losing her job. Dave Chappelle thinks his friend not getting to host the Oscars is an important issue. These guys live in a different world from us. They donāt understand what issues issues are important. All they accomplish is making people think the things that impact them are important. Which is a distraction.
In the end of it all thereās nothing anyone can do about cancel culture. You canāt strap people down and force them to watch things they donāt like ala Clockwork Orange. Popular people will be on TV and unpopular people wonāt be. Thatās just show business. The internet offers celebrities new ways to say and do things that will make them unpopular. When that happens you wonāt see them on TV anymore because people donāt want someone they donāt like on their TV screens.
The problem is when you have politicians talking about doing something cultural changes because a celebrity convinced people that a cultural shift is a poltical problem that government should be involved in. Politicians running on anti-woke (whatever that means) cultural issues is a very bad thing. The government shouldnāt be regulating cultural norms and it feels like thatā where things are headed. And Hollywood assholes ranting on podcasts making people feel like nothing burgers like cancel culture being major problems just puts fuel on that fire.
I wish we could go back to the days when if a comedian bombed, the only thing they could do was improve their material. Now itās like they have a power over the audience to make people think their weak material is good and if the audience isnāt laughing itās because the audience is wrong. Itās all backwards.
Make comedy funny again.
(Btw someone already downvoted you and I just wanted to be clear that it was not me)
You are kinda all over the map here - you jumped from hollywood has zero impact on us to how they are trying to kill us. I get it, both are true, in differing ways, but it points to how complex these topics are (e.g. Hollywood has little direct effects on us, and some people in it are highly irresponsible - also, Joe Rogan is from Austin Texas not Hollywood California, but thatās not terribly relevant, just saying that we could get lost in all the little ādetailsā for days on end!:-P).
One simplifying rule: Right or Wrong, the biggest thing in life, at least as it relates to Freedom, seems to me to be the notion of āconsentā. e.g. Hitler/Putin/whoever invades countries: if they somehow wanted that (spank me hardy Nazi daddy) then itās all cool, but on the off-chance that it was nonconsensual, then it is NOT COOL.
If Netflix were to drop Chappelle b/c heās not funny, then thatās their choice. But if they drop him b/c one segment of society has an enormous amount of power, especially in proportion to their numbers, then that is ānot fairā. Why canāt *I* watch Chappelle, if I want to, just b/c ātheyā say that I canāt? Thatās not freedom, and I might have an opinion on that. On the other hand, maybe my opinion is undeserved? Like if Chappelle were to advocate violence against America, that should get him cancelled, or if he were to advocate that we become actual, literal Nazis (even without the urgent and direct call to the actual violence), then that too should get him cancelled. But saying that he is perpetuating āviolenceā against trans peopleā¦
On this point I am willing to be convinced, bc I havenāt managed to come to a firm stance here yet. Although you havenāt even watched his special so you could not be the one to do that for me in any case. On its face though it seems absurd to me - not wanting to call someone by a preferred pronoun is not the same thing as āviolenceā. And to be clear, *I* myself will call people by their preferred pronoun, plus I also will always use ātheyā if it is unknown, but even so I do appreciate his insight there, that consent of all the parties involved should matter. So especially if someone starts the school year with one pronoun and then changes it midway through, it makes sense that it may get difficult to always remember to switch, especially if the person still presents as the other gender (e.g. a man with a deep voice now calling herself a woman - yet still has a deep voice?). Iām saying that itās confusing, and itās NEW.
More to the point, Chappelle barely talks about trans people at all (edit: used to, before the attempt to cancel him over it), except to point out the extreme unfairness of it all. Black people have been trying to be called āpeopleā for HUNDREDS OF YEARS, but then homosexual white men advocate for their chosen lifestyle and suddenly in ONE DECADE win a Supreme Court that makes it legal to get married? And now trans people are coming up, and even though as you say they are so rare that most of us have never even so much as MET one before (I had lots of gay friends - both men & women, and most of the people I become friends with online seem to be homosexual men, I think b/c of the sensitivity aspect that allows us to enjoy talking with one another - but even so I have never met a single trans person in my entire lifetime that I know of), and yet despite that, they instantly get a seat at the table? Suddenly we all have to use whatever pronouns they want? As if they areā¦ āpeopleā? Well, they are, but also: BREONNA TAYLOR WAS SLEEPING!!! His point seems to me to be: why canāt black people be treated the same way - as āpeopleā? - like, whenever a trans person is harmed, people rise up in arms and defend them, but except trans, do that for black? He has this wonderful story about being called into HR and told never to say the āF-a-.ā(-o-t) word again. He agrees, but asks: āwhy notā, especially when he can use the N- word with impunity? The response is that he is not one of them. HIS response in turn is that well, he isnāt an N- word either!?!?!?!:-P
Also, Chappelle has advanced civil rights for his entire lifetime, by breaking into what was previously mostly-white or mostly-black spaces, and bringing audiences together from both races that enjoy his brand. But now the newest minority group has the gall to tell him the equivalent of āthanks bitch-ass n-word, but you can go back out into the fields now, we got thisā. He feels sleighted, he feels ignored, he feelsā¦ much like the trans people must feel, except instead of displaying sensitivity, both of those sides for whatever reason cannot seem to get along.
And then here we are, talking about what is going on in Hollywood, as if it is important:-). But the whole country is getting up in arms over all of this - to the point of checking peopleās literal genitals, bathrooms, in sports, and on and on. Both sides are pushing on this hot-button topic: either for or against, itās YUGE. What I get from Daveās comedy is that if we put even 1% of that energy and attention into solving racism, then it would be over by the end of the day tomorrow. Right or Wrong (the issue did not arise in just one day hence will not be solved in one either), ā¦ he has a point? White people have, once again, appropriated civil rights language and processes, and in so doing managed to entirely ignore the oppression of black people. Like, I donāt know if refusing to use preferred pronouns is a form of āviolenceā (I cannot imagine that it feels very nice, but is that word too extreme?), but what is happening all across the nation to black people - e.g. in Ferguson MO - is ACTUAL VIOLENCE. And it would be nice if BOTH issues were to receive attention, although at the time a lot of his specials were coming out (before BLM, before the situation with Floyd was caught on camera), trans were getting nearly all of the attention while black people little to none, at least, on the larger scale. Thankfully, that has changed somewhat. Exceptā¦ has it though?
Then youād hate Anthony Jeselnik
I LOVE Anthony Jeselnik - heās amazing, and I would pay to see him. I daresay that heās one of my personal favorites.
The difference is consent - if I pay to see him, then I want it, while if someone walks up to me (like at school) and says the identical words, thatās the difference.
I would pay to see him as well but what the article insinuates is that āpushing boundaries with comedyā is just bullying with extra steps, which I heavily disagree with. Yes thereās a time and a place for it but something like this makes me feel like theyāre taking a jab at harsher comedy as a whole.
Thatās not what I took from it at all. For one itās The Onion community, so I presumed that this was satire from the start (even though Iāve never heard of this particular site before) and more importantly whereas Anthony Jeselnik is a master of his craft, the boy in the story seems portrayed as just a bully who is using whatever justification/excuse he can to avoid consequences for his actions? Hence by Occamās Razor I went with the latter rather than the former.
Fwiw, I agree with you insofar as that comedy needs special exemptions from the traditional rules of society bc otherwise it simply cannot be as effective in its job, in holding up a mirror to poke fun at society as a whole and thereby help us become better, plus do so with a smile on our faces:-).
But walking up to someone and straight up calling them a ācuntā - thatās not comedy. On the other hand, paying someone to do exactly that? Now thatās comedy!:-P
Anthony Jeselnik tells this joke: a blind guy walks up to him after the show, saying that he wants to hear more jokes making fun of blind people. Anthony goes, āYou want to hear a blind joke? Okay hereās one:ā, then just walks away. Classic! :-P
Sure but The Onion satire always comes with a political message lightly baked into the surface. It seems more likely to me that theyāre making comments about comedy in general and how comics who tell harsh or offensive jokes are just elementary school bullies playing it off as a joke. Iāve never heard a kid use the phrase āpushing boundaries with my comedyā whereas thatās definitely something a standup comic would say.
Thatās why the article rubbed me the wrong way. I still enjoy Dave Chappelle, Anthony, and comics who dare say unpopular shit through the lens of comedy. The Onion seems to disagree.
Maybe, but then again if Chappelle is allowed to use edgy humor (and in my book, he always is!:-P), then so too is The Onion.
They might even be doing it purely for the joke? As in whatever sounds most funny? I donāt read so much of The Onion anymore - itās always full of ads and itās been funny for decades but itās always pretty much the same, just stating absurd things purely for the sake of absurdity, soā¦ I get it, and move on. :-P
Roasting is always a staple of comedy though, and if you step up onto the big stage, then you become fair game - so long as it is respectfully delivered (like, said in someoneās own act, not coming over to the recipientās act and interrupting it, at least not without permission!:-P). So I presume that Chappelle and others can take care of themselves:-). The only force that could stop me from listening to Chappelle is Chappelle himself, and he shows no signs of that - heās so insightful! (like about trans people: if you are trans in Texas, then you are āpassingā, which still aināt black! there is nothing whatsoever that Chappelle can do about his own skin color, which is a sobering reminder that not all civil rights are equal - some are are deadly as literal life & death!)
Anyway, I did detect an undercurrent of a subversive message, but I thought it was the absurdity of young (white, especially wealthy) kids getting away with practically murder in todayās school environments. Also it has notes similar to Trumpās never getting anything pinned onto him, despite ātelling it like it isā (except we know that that is not āhow it isā). That kid is NOT doing comedy though, hence I did not go so far as to extend the hidden thoughts into the realm of comedy itself. Though I do not know that site āReductressā, so maybe, if thatās a common theme there? I am just saying that it sounded more to me that he repeated a phrase that he heard often, without properly applying it to his own particular situation (again, using it as a ājustificationā rather than a āreasonā), and the absurdity is not how a young kid behaves - b/c thatās understandable!:-P - but how the adults go along with it rather than push back, which is not!?!?