• SpaceCowboy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    Yes, criticism is covered by free speech (except somehow when Dave Chappelle does itā€¦?:-P)

    This is the old ā€œWell you canā€™t say X anymoreā€ fallacy. You can. You just did. Itā€™s really ā€œYou canā€™t say X anymore without people criticizing you for it.ā€ Yeah, thatā€™s 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 heā€™s 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 thatā€™s so special that no one is allowed to exercise their right in a way that negatively impacts him?

    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)

    Why is this a problem? Itā€™s just a TV show, why does it matter?

    Teachers are literally being fired for not using kidsā€™ preferred pronouns.

    Teachers are being fired for emotionally abusing children? Thatā€™s 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 ā€œthatā€™s what I see that kid as, nothing but a sissy girl. Itā€™s MUH RIGHT to call anyone I want a sissy girl if thatā€™s how I think of them!ā€ Would you think, oh well, thatā€™s cool, thatā€™s 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 youā€™re in a workplace you have to be a professional. If you canā€™t behave like a professional in the workplace, you get fired. Just how things work.

    Itā€™s sad to me how politics have eroded the concept of workplace professionalism. Used to be there was a rule about the three things you donā€™t talk about at work: sex, religion, and politics. But now thatā€™s 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 bossā€™s office tomorrow and tell him heā€™s an asshole. And I can do that and no one can stop me. But itā€™s probably not a good career move, is it?

    And then thereā€™s that time someone got all passive aggressive at me for referring to them as a they/them. Like, Iā€™m sorry Pat, weā€™re communicating over email, I donā€™t 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 youā€™re 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 donā€™t actually give a shit about anyoneā€™s gender when Iā€™m at work but I do need to type something to someone else saying ā€œPatā€™s 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) Iā€™m like alright, youā€™re helping me out there. If there werenā€™t 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 thatā€™s useful even in scenarios where there are no Trans people involved. Itā€™s like weā€™re making things more difficult for everyone just to spite trans people.

    Where it crosses a line, imho, is when someone writes to the means of delivery - a TV station, or in this case Netflix

    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, weā€™re still in a place where Dave Chappelleā€™s rights matter more than other peopleā€™s rights. The thing about rights is, everyone has them. And many times people will exercise their rights in ways you donā€™t 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 Chappelleā€™s rights takes precedence over other peopleā€™s rights? Itā€™s just down to para-social behavior. People feeling like Dave Chappelle is their friend so they should stick up for him. If you donā€™t have any trans people as friends then you donā€™t feel like sticking up for them.

    And thereā€™s the rub. Itā€™s why trans people get targeted. Not many trans people around so most people donā€™t have any trans people as friends. The whole trans thing is confusing and uncomfortable. Thereā€™s a surgery involved. Thereā€™s 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? Itā€™s trans people. Itā€™s always trans people. Itā€™s the group they always go after first.

    Depending on the style of comedy, it can be a part of a comedianā€™s job to understand culture. With Dave Chappelleā€™s comedy style thatā€™s definitely the case. Heā€™s not doing Norm MacDonald style comedy where heā€™s pretending to be the dumbest guy in the room while actually being the smartest guy in the room being meta with anyone knowing. Heā€™s not Conan Oā€™Brien doing some silly things. His comedy is about commentary on culture and relating to the audience. If he canā€™t understand the cultural impact of the things heā€™s saying, heā€™s being incompetent at his job.

    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.

    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 canā€™t know the number but Iā€™m 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 isnā€™t 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 whatā€™s real for us now. While Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite may have gotten a few things wrong in their careers, I donā€™t think what we have now is an improvement.

    Comedy in particular causes us to question ourselves, and may impact e.g. voting behaviors, and thereby relates to real life.

    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 donā€™t 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 thereā€™s nothing anyone can do about cancel culture. You canā€™t strap people down and force them to watch things they donā€™t like ala Clockwork Orange. Popular people will be on TV and unpopular people wonā€™t be. Thatā€™s just show business. The internet offers celebrities new ways to say and do things that will make them unpopular. When that happens you wonā€™t see them on TV anymore because people donā€™t want someone they donā€™t 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 shouldnā€™t 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 itā€™s like they have a power over the audience to make people think their weak material is good and if the audience isnā€™t laughing itā€™s because the audience is wrong. Itā€™s all backwards.

    Make comedy funny again.

    • OpenStars@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      (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 thatā€™s not terribly relevant, just saying that we could get lost in all the little ā€œdetailsā€ 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 ā€œconsentā€. e.g. Hitler/Putin/whoever invades countries: if they somehow wanted that (spank me hardy Nazi daddy) then itā€™s all cool, but on the off-chance that it was nonconsensual, then it is NOT COOL.

      If Netflix were to drop Chappelle b/c heā€™s not funny, then thatā€™s 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 ā€œnot fairā€. Why canā€™t *I* watch Chappelle, if I want to, just b/c ā€œtheyā€ say that I canā€™t? Thatā€™s 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 ā€œviolenceā€ against trans peopleā€¦

      On this point I am willing to be convinced, bc I havenā€™t managed to come to a firm stance here yet. Although you havenā€™t 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 ā€œviolenceā€. And to be clear, *I* myself will call people by their preferred pronoun, plus I also will always use ā€œtheyā€ 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?). Iā€™m saying that itā€™s confusing, and itā€™s 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 ā€œpeopleā€ 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€¦ ā€œpeopleā€? Well, they are, but also: BREONNA TAYLOR WAS SLEEPING!!! His point seems to me to be: why canā€™t black people be treated the same way - as ā€œpeopleā€? - 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 ā€œF-a-.ā€(-o-t) word again. He agrees, but asks: ā€œwhy 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 isnā€™t 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 ā€œthanks 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 peopleā€™s literal genitals, bathrooms, in sports, and on and on. Both sides are pushing on this hot-button topic: either for or against, itā€™s YUGE. What I get from Daveā€™s 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 donā€™t know if refusing to use preferred pronouns is a form of ā€œviolenceā€ (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?

      • SpaceCowboy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        10 months ago

        (Btw I donā€™t care about internet points so donā€™t worry about it)

        I think it sounds all over the place because I recognize that Hollywood is something thatā€™s a significant thing in our society BUT I donā€™t think it should be.

        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.

        Seems like a downward spiral to me. So heā€™s making more and more of his routine based not on making the funniest jokes possible, heā€™s making his routine about spite. Sorry I donā€™t find spiteful people all that funny.

        I think thereā€™s too much focus on whether or not Dave Chappelle has a right to say what heā€™s saying that there isnā€™t enough consideration given to whether or not what heā€™s doing is actually right. Heā€™s bullying people in his show. Creating a culture where itā€™s normalized to denigrate people that are already has a big target on them.

        While everyone has a right to say something that is wrong, trying to keep the discussion focused only on the right to say something is just avoiding the fact that Chappelle is in the wrong here.

        I love Norm MacDonaldā€™s (RIP) take on this. Something like ā€œyeah I might be just joking around about trans people but then someone takes it the wrong way and beats the shit out of a trans person.ā€ Norm was one of the most fearless comedian of all time but he stopped making trans jokes. Not because he was afraid of being cancelled (itā€™s Norm, cā€™mon) but because he understood that an old joke isnā€™t as important as someone getting the shit kicked out of them. Even if thereā€™s only a possibility of that happening is it worth it? Itā€™s just entertainment, itā€™s not really worth that much.

        Sometimes jokes just expire. Old jokes that just arenā€™t funny anymore just have to be retired.

        So I was a teenager when the movie Ace Ventura Pet Detective came out. Prime demographic for that movie. At the end of the movie there are a lot of trans jokes. I laughed at these jokes. But in the thirty years since that movie came out, Iā€™d like to think I learned a few things. One of the things Iā€™ve learned in the decades since seeing that movie was that trans people are people. Those jokes were mean spirited. And if I see that movie again, the ending only reminds of what a stupid shit I was when I was a teenager. Iā€™d be cringing too hard to be capable of laughing at those jokes. So Iā€™ll probably not be watching Ace Ventura again because I know the cringe thatā€™ll be having at the end of the movie. Cancelled.

        In my town many years before I was born there were minstrel shows. You know shows, where guys put on blackface and pranced around like fools. My parentā€™s generation had a discussion about this one time. People would pack up the kids go to these shows and have a good time. But then at some point people realized ā€œwait this is super racist.ā€ and everyone started going to the shows. So the people that did the shows made some changes. No more black face. From that point forward it just be a show with clowns. Same basic show, but no more blackface. You know what happened? Nobody went. People just didnā€™t feel good about buying tickets, packing up the kids and going to the show even after the blackface element was removed. When itā€™s an entertainment product, it really doesnā€™t take all that much to decide ā€œnah Iā€™m not going to make effort to go to something I donā€™t feel completely good about.ā€ The show was shut down permanently. Cancelled.

        Culture changes, what was funny in the past is no longer funny now. So why is Dave Chappelle still making trans jokes 30 years after Ace Ventura? Is there a link there to the anti-trans politics happening now?

        Dave Chappelle isnā€™t worth watching now. If Netflix doesnā€™t want their brand associated with Chappelleā€™s downward spiral into bigotry (which isnā€™t funny to a lot of people), they have the right to disassociate themselves from him. He has a right to say what he wants to say, but there is no right to have a comedy special on Netflix. If thatā€™s the case, I want to star in a comedy special on Netflix, I think Iā€™m a funny guy. If Netflix denies me a comedy special, will you be angry about them denying me my rights?

        Or is it because Dave Chappelle is famous he has the right to be on Netflix? And weā€™re back to that para-social relationship with celebrities that makes people feel they deserve special treatment and they have the right to things we donā€™t have a right to.

        Dave Chappelle has the right to say what he wants even when heā€™s wrong. But that doesnā€™t mean he isnā€™t wrong. Netflix has the right to cancel his show, itā€™s their streaming site. People have the right to petition Netflix to cancel Chappelle.

        None of this wouldā€™ve happened if Chappelle had a better awareness of the shifts in cultural norms. Which is part of his job. He didnā€™t do his job very well, and anyone

        But the whole country is getting up in arms over all of this - to the point of checking peopleā€™s literal genitals, bathrooms, in sports, and on and on. Both sides are pushing on this hot-button topic

        And is Dave Chappelle making things better? Perhaps itā€™s better for Netflix to stop showing his specials until people settle down a little?

        Also itā€™s not quite a both sides kind of thing. One side wants to take away peopleā€™s right to live their lives how they want. The other side wants everyone to continue to have that right. Itā€™s not so much pushing the issue, itā€™s more like pushing back against people that want to take away rights from a group thatā€™s a convenient target. Trans people have been around my whole life. Why all of a sudden all this urgency about this? Could it be something fabricated by people that want to take away rights, and this happens to be the group that a lot of people would tolerate losing rights? Call me paranoid, but I donā€™t know if the people that want to take away the rights of one group of people will stop there.

        And these are actual rights. not Hollywood ā€œrightsā€ which seem to be all about the ā€œrightā€ of famous narcissists to remain famous even when people donā€™t like them anymore. Donā€™t worry so much about Chappelle, heā€™s a millionaire, heā€™ll be fine. Trans people thoughā€¦ Iā€™m not sure if theyā€™ll be fine if things keep going the way they are.

        • OpenStars@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          10 months ago

          One thing that bugs me: when Jon Stewart was accused of making fun of trans people, he had the grace and class to apologize. e.g. he made a joke one time about a ā€œtranny prostituteā€, and he indicated that he was sorry, and realizes now that it was wrong - people should never ā€œpunch downā€.

          The thing with Chappelle is that as a black man, it is not clear that has ever ā€œpunched downā€? Even so, he probably should have risen to the occasion and just apologized. I think heā€™s correct in what heā€™s saying, though profits off of saying it offensively so does that. Which still advances the cause of getting the issues discussed more broadly in society, but also rankles a bit - a role that he seems okay with, and might even be necessary, though not one that we should ever aspire to ourselves. He at least is smart enough to handle walking that line, and deal with whatever consequences may come.

          Also, oddly enough, whether itā€™s due to Chappelleā€™s challenges or whatever, I hear some of the same talk coming from actual LGBTQ comedians? e.g., there is a difference b/t ā€œsexā€ and ā€œgenderā€ - like if a big dude walks up to you, with a beard and a deep voice, and says that they are a woman, obviously they must be referring to the latter rather than former, but itā€™s not always so easy to tell otherwise.

          Though Chappelle is saying that from the ā€œoutsideā€, while there are other dicussions happening from the ā€œinsideā€, so he still gets razed b/c he shouldnā€™t be the one saying it, even if they are identical words. Context matters. Also, he says it in an insensitive manner, b/c that too is his style of reaching out to poor, less educated people.

          And all of this is complicated still further by the actions of the other side - e.g. there was some controversy about how employees of Netflix tried to force their way into director-level meetings about the subject, and they were fired. Was that b/c they were trans? Notā€¦ entirely, or even mostly - they were fired b/c they were acting entitled and ignoring the standards of professional behavior. Though there was a huge outcry b/c how dare Netflix fire people ā€œfor being transā€. (Also relevant, their being trans themselves gave them sympathy, which lead to why they acted the way that they did, feeling personally impacted).

          Remember though, ā€œcancellingā€ isnā€™t simply choosing not to go to a show anymore - thatā€™s your personal choice, and it does not rise to ā€œcancellingā€ until something like a gang of bikers blocks all the roadways leading into the show. The show people paid money for the venue, did the advertising, rented the space, got the permits, travelled, using their gasoline, and on and on it goes - and some of the audience members likewise wanted to come, but something in-between the seller and the buyer blocked them, ā€œcancellingā€ the show, setting themselves up as the moral authority to show-block the will of all of the other parties. i.e., they acted as Karens, exactly in the same manner as those states that are trying to block medical care to trans people, but on the other side. Whenever you set yourself up to be the moral authority of a subject, different expectations begin to be applied to a ā€œleaderā€ rather than a mere participant.

          Hereā€™s an interesting article on it: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/06/1050313989/netflix-dave-chappelle-cancel-culture-trans-employees:

          Often, pushing media companies to live up to their ideals about inclusion and equality is a long game, requiring sustained pressure and constant scrutiny ā€” a much different notion than so-called ā€œcancel culture.ā€ Responding to problematic media with a knee-jerk push to cancel people just encourages companies to react without nuance or deliberation when a controversy erupts.

          Soā€¦ there are problems and imperfect steps taken by all sides of this matter. And it does not help that trans people seem like they could care less about issues faced by black people - they just want theirs, and thatā€™s all. It would help if we all could push just for ā€œcivil rightsā€ and have that be inclusive of ALL, but b/c of the extremely low numbers, plus the extreme severity of the issues faced by black people, if that were to happen then trans people would not have gotten a fraction of the attention that has been awarded there in the past (if effort was put in according to that principle ā€œto each according to their needā€). Again, words may hurt peopleā€™s feelings butā€¦ you know what I am going to say donā€™t youā€¦ BREONNA TAYLOR WAS SLEEPING!!! Those are not at the same level at all.

          • SpaceCowboy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            Ā·
            10 months ago

            The thing with Chappelle is that as a black man, it is not clear that has ever ā€œpunched downā€?

            Itā€™s not like thereā€™s a hierarchy of which group is worse off than the other. Chappelle is a multi-milliionaire with Netflix specials. Money = power, and heā€™s got a lot of money. So he has a lot more power than the people heā€™s attacking. Thatā€™s punching down. If a trans person was as wealthy and well established as Dave Chappelle and started talking shit about black people, it would be also be punching down. Money has a big part to play in this, as it does in most aspects of our society.

            Also, oddly enough, whether itā€™s due to Chappelleā€™s challenges or whatever, I hear some of the same talk coming from actual LGBTQ comedians?

            Itā€™s generally accepted that itā€™s fine for members of a group to talk about their own group. Within reason, of course. Nobody is upset if Dave Chappelle makes commentary on the black community.

            like if a big dude walks up to you, with a beard and a deep voice, and says that they are a woman, obviously they must be referring to the latter rather than former, but itā€™s not always so easy to tell otherwise.

            I dunno. Probably just ask. Generally if youā€™re respectful to others youā€™re not going to have problems when thereā€™s confusion.

            Though Chappelle is saying that from the ā€œoutsideā€, while there are other dicussions happening from the ā€œinsideā€, so he still gets razed b/c he shouldnā€™t be the one saying it, even if they are identical words.

            Yup. Thatā€™s how it works on lots of things. If I say ā€œthere are a lot of problems with the USā€ do those words have different meaning if itā€™s an American saying it vs. if a non-American says it? If itā€™s an American saying it, itā€™s an invitation to discuss the problems of the country with a peer. If a non-Amercan says it, It comes off as a little judgemental doesnā€™t it?

            Often, pushing media companies to live up to their ideals about inclusion and equality is a long game, requiring sustained pressure and constant scrutiny ā€” a much different notion than so-called ā€œcancel culture.ā€ Responding to problematic media with a knee-jerk push to cancel people just encourages companies to react without nuance or deliberation when a controversy erupts.

            Yeah ultimately companies are all about making money. I always laugh when people say things like Disney is woke. Or Hasbro is woke for how they market Potato heads. Or the Dr. Seuss Company is woke for pulling some books. Thereā€™s actually something these companies have in common. They all make products directed at young people. Theyā€™ve done market research and they decide things based on what will make them money.

            Disney fired Gina Corano so that Millenials would feel comfortable watching the next season of Mandorian with their kids. It was important for those kids to see what Mandoā€™s new spaceship looked like so they would want that toy for Christmas. Because thatā€™s what Disney really cares about: money.

            And it does not help that trans people seem like they could care less about issues faced by black people - they just want theirs

            It may shock you to learn that there are actually black trans people.

            It would help if we all could push just for ā€œcivil rightsā€ and have that be inclusive of ALL, but b/c of the extremely low numbers, plus the extreme severity of the issues faced by black people, if that were to happen then trans people would not have gotten a fraction of the attention that has been awarded there in the past

            Agree completely. But consider that those that are against this may be taking a divide and conquer approach. Pit various minority groups against one another so people canā€™t unite in a common cause for rights for everyone. Trans people are always the group that people using this approach go after first. Like I say, theyā€™re a very small group, not a lot of people have trans friends, people feel confused and uncomfortable about trans people. So itā€™s easy to isolate them and take away their rights. But people that are all about taking away peopleā€™s rights usually donā€™t stop with just trans people.

            If we want people to unite for the common interest of civil rights for everyone, then is Dave Chappelle helping in that cause?

            • OpenStars@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              10 months ago

              The answer to that depends: is he correct? Even so, it does not help that he was being crass. Bc of the latter, even if trans people themselves end up coming to the same endpoint, they seem unlikely to thank him? Then again, he was not advocating for trans people, he was advocating for black, at which point it seems helpful how he pointed out what the the prioritization should be: danger to life first, then secondary concerns.