Dave Chappelle

[ahah]

May 13, 2022 12:26:42 GMT -4 cubanitafresca said:

May 11, 2022 12:00:22 GMT -4 Ridha said:

Daphne a Trans woman for instance did not find Dave Chappelle offensive (nor, cubanitafresca did she think he punched down, and wrote a tweet detailing why).

May 11, 2022 14:38:09 GMT -4 ahah said:

The recognition to no group being a monolith takes us back to the question of who determines the yardstick, no?

There are always going to be outliers in every situation. There are people of color who support Trump and don't believe he is racist despite all the evidence to the contrary. There are also people who think the earth is flat too.

So when it comes to whether we believe that someone's words (or comedy) are hurtful and damaging to a specific group the yardstick is what the majority of people within that group are telling you. And in this case, the majority are telling everyone that it's a problem. Believe them. period.

One other aspect I haven't seen mentioned in this conversation or anywhere - Daphne Dorman wasn't some big-time comedian. Her biggest gig was opening for Chappelle one time, and she's got one credit on IMBD, some movie I doubt anyone ever heard of. The power dynamic in that relationship was all one way - especially for someone trying to break into the big time. The backlash she got for supporting him was nothing compared to the backlash she would have gotten had she called him out for his comments and likely would have cost her any chance at a career in comedy.

I think this illustrates some of the problem with the idea of a group being the measure of what is and is not acceptable behavior. How do we determine the majority? In instances where a group is divided on their views of what is offensive by a close measure - say 55/45, does the majority stand? Or is that considered close enough that there is no clear direction?

Then you have the problem of where the opinions are gathered. Do we rely on social media as a measure? Because social media brings with it a certain pressure to go along with the majority even if you don't think it. I've seen that happen with groups I'm a part of - one person will express an opinion with conviction, and 2 or 3 others express agreement. Others who don't speak up are assumed to agree as well - but then later it's revealed that they disagreed but didn't want to rock the boat so they didn't speak up.

I am not saying this to be a smarty-pants. I am trying to make the point that as noble and kind as it sounds, the idea of expecting people to comply in what they say and how they express themselves based on how others feel about it is not realistic, and does not encourage needed discourse. As an ideal, it sounds great. But the unintended consequences are real and they are damaging.

[Millis]

I get the point about group think and who is the arbiter of what or what not is offensive, but it's one thing to be discussing which Star Wars movie is best, or even more serious topics such as what is the best way to end conflict in the Ukraine or even when does life begin. I can find some of the arguments from any of the above offensive and wrong, but I recognize that they are legitimate discussions. However, when the topic is 'trans people are disgusting' or 'Jewish people are bad', those are not legitimate discourses and people have every right to not engage with those spouting those viewpoints. Comedians including Dave Chappelle have been offensive since the beginning of comedy itself, and there have been many times I've decided to no longer watch someone because I find them personally offensive. For instance, I used to find Tosh.0 funny until I didn't. My husband still does, I just no longer watch with him. Simple. But if there was openly hateful content on his show, sorry to say I'd have a problem with my husband watching him because it would speak to his character as to why he finds it funny.

[ahah]

May 13, 2022 15:02:42 GMT -4 Millis said:

I get the point about group think and who is the arbiter of what or what not is offensive, but it's one thing to be discussing which Star Wars movie is best, or even more serious topics such as what is the best way to end conflict in the Ukraine or even when does life begin. I can find some of the arguments from any of the above offensive and wrong, but I recognize that they are legitimate discussions. However, when the topic is 'trans people are disgusting' or 'Jewish people are bad', those are not legitimate discourses and people have every right to not engage with those spouting those viewpoints. Comedians including Dave Chappelle have been offensive since the beginning of comedy itself, and there have been many times I've decided to no longer watch someone because I find them personally offensive. For instance, I used to find Tosh.0 funny until I didn't. My husband still does, I just no longer watch with him. Simple. But if there was openly hateful content on his show, sorry to say I'd have a problem with my husband watching him because it would speak to his character as to why he finds it funny.

I have two thoughts for your consideration on these points. First, I think there is a fine line between offensive and provocative. Being provocative can be a good thing if it prompts thought and discussion, but is sometimes harsh in order to provoke those things. And second, along those lines, sometimes a message is conveyed with the intent of dismissing it or mocking it, but that is not clear to every audience (ie the Borat character). Sometimes, even if it is not meant to dismiss or mock a point of view, having an artist be honest about their thoughts can help others to understand where they are coming from in order counter the thinking. I don't think talk show hosts who interview white supremacists in an informational way are doing a bad thing, because it helps an audience to understand that thinking does exist in order to curb it in others. Likewise, a comedy show where a comedian is either honest about his/her feelings or expresses a view they don't hold in order to provoke and further a discussion (because a lot of the time it's hard to tell which they're doing) the open nature of what is being said can take us somewhere positive even if the thought is negative.

I think there's room for the possibility that audience members are not mindless globs who accept and repeat everything they hear blindly, but rather than people are capable of listening to someone, thinking, and drawing their own conclusions. I think this is more effective than demanding people not speak honestly where misunderstanding is then left to fester.

[Millis]

I would agree with your point about an interview with a white supremacist, or even comedy like Borat that is meant to offend in order to provoke thought. You can argue you think Chappelle's intent is to also provoke thought, I disagree. I mean, where do we draw the line? Is it okay for a comedian to openly spew racist language and advocate for segregation? Is it okay for a comedian to worship Hitler and celebrate the Holocaust? There are certainly people that would agree with both of those hypothetical comedians and bemoan cancel culture if they were removed from a platform. There IS a line that comedians can cross, for me that line is openly declaring disgust for trans people. I would not accept it if it were a white comedian talking about disgust for black people, and I do not have to accept it from Dave Chappelle. There are plenty of people that DO accept it, and they can feel free to be his fans and watch his shows and pay for tickets to see him. He is not cancelled, but people have every right to wish he could be.

[ahah]

May 13, 2022 17:10:04 GMT -4 Millis said:

I would agree with your point about an interview with a white supremacist, or even comedy like Borat that is meant to offend in order to provoke thought. You can argue you think Chappelle's intent is to also provoke thought, I disagree. I mean, where do we draw the line? Is it okay for a comedian to openly spew racist language and advocate for segregation? Is it okay for a comedian to worship Hitler and celebrate the Holocaust? There are certainly people that would agree with both of those hypothetical comedians and bemoan cancel culture if they were removed from a platform. There IS a line that comedians can cross, for me that line is openly declaring disgust for trans people. I would not accept it if it were a white comedian talking about disgust for black people, and I do not have to accept it from Dave Chappelle. There are plenty of people that DO accept it, and they can feel free to be his fans and watch his shows and pay for tickets to see him. He is not cancelled, but people have every right to wish he could be.

I respect your point of view but I disagree. I don’t think we need to determine where to draw a line - the line is not needed. If a person is using comedy to promote hatred, I don’t think he or she would build enough of an audience to make an impact. So I’m okay with letting it be said and letting the audience say no thanks.

[cubanitafresca]

May 13, 2022 21:26:03 GMT -4 ahah said:

I don’t think we need to determine where to draw a line - the line is not needed. If a person is using comedy to promote hatred, I don’t think he or she would build enough of an audience to make an impact. So I’m okay with letting it be said and letting the audience say no thanks.

Are you serious with this comment? Have you looked around at what is going on in this country?

- We've got a television talking head with a successful prime time show who does segments on how diversity is bad and regularly attacks any politician of color. AND HE STILL HAS A SHOW

- We've got people marching with torches chanting "Jews will not replace us" in public without even enough shame to cover their faces.

- And we just got rid of a president who called those same people "Very fine People"

- Politicians are white washing history so that it doesn't acknowledge the reality of slavery.

So, if you think there isn't a market for someone using comedy to promote hatred, you're not paying attention.

Instead, you want to play philosophical games like what majority is big enough for people to be upset? 55/45? How about people just stand up for what's right? How about we just acknowledge that a specific group of people are suffering mightily, and we all step up and defend them simply because it's the right thing.

[Ridha]

Because it’s debatable what’s “the right thing”, and which the oppressed community “suffering mightily” is?

You mentioned rhetoric against Jews above. Well to many, especially not in America, American mainstream media is so protective of the Jewish community, that one can’t even speak against the atrocity of Israel as a concept and specific atrocities by Israel against Palestine without being labelled anti-semitic. Jeremy Corbyn, George Galloway, and the very brave Norman Finkelstein (since it requires more strength to stand up for rights against your own community (as Caitlyn Jenner has found out, and as borne out by the reaction to her swimming against the tide in this very thread, where that can’t possibly be her genuine opinion, but “self interest”) have all experienced that.

And what’s the right thing between protecting Womens rights and spaces in sports or bathrooms; or letting men take their gold medals or make them fearful?

It’s not “philosophical” questions about close majorities. I can truly understand how it might seem that way if the only people who hold certain views in your country come wearing those red Maga hats or white hoods. But there is a RANGE of nice enough people who aren’t racist rednecks who also have a different worldview than you, including who’s Oppressed and what’s Right. For instance on this thread I know I’m the Bad, regressive one (and that’s genuinely ok, I reference it as an example merely to illustrate my point), and you all are the Good, enlightened ones. But if you step out of your circle of friends, country, social media forum, echo chamber, you’ll find that alooot of pretty good people hold fairly different views on a range of topics, and have a VERY different opinion on whose Oppressed, and what standing up for what’s Right entails.

[ahah]

May 14, 2022 11:47:59 GMT -4 cubanitafresca said:

May 13, 2022 21:26:03 GMT -4 ahah said:

I don’t think we need to determine where to draw a line - the line is not needed. If a person is using comedy to promote hatred, I don’t think he or she would build enough of an audience to make an impact. So I’m okay with letting it be said and letting the audience say no thanks.

Are you serious with this comment? Have you looked around at what is going on in this country?

- We've got a television talking head with a successful prime time show who does segments on how diversity is bad and regularly attacks any politician of color. AND HE STILL HAS A SHOW

- We've got people marching with torches chanting "Jews will not replace us" in public without even enough shame to cover their faces.

- And we just got rid of a president who called those same people "Very fine People"

- Politicians are white washing history so that it doesn't acknowledge the reality of slavery.

So, if you think there isn't a market for someone using comedy to promote hatred, you're not paying attention.

Instead, you want to play philosophical games like what majority is big enough for people to be upset? 55/45? How about people just stand up for what's right? How about we just acknowledge that a specific group of people are suffering mightily, and we all step up and defend them simply because it's the right thing.

Yes, I am serious in my comment. Because I think everyone is better off when we listen and discuss things seeking understanding than when we divide people based on anything, dismissing ideas we don’t hold and considering them threatening.

[ennazus]

Cubanitafresca, I’m giving you a virtual standing ovation for your comment.

[Mutagen]

May 14, 2022 12:50:01 GMT -4 Ridha said:

It’s not “philosophical” questions about close majorities. I can truly understand how it might seem that way if the only people who hold certain views in your country come wearing those red Maga hats or white hoods. But there is a RANGE of nice enough people who aren’t racist rednecks who also have a different worldview than you, including who’s Oppressed and what’s Right. For instance on this thread I know I’m the Bad, regressive one (and that’s genuinely ok, I reference it as an example merely to illustrate my point), and you all are the Good, enlightened ones. But if you step out of your circle of friends, country, social media forum, echo chamber, you’ll find that alooot of pretty good people hold fairly different views on a range of topics, and have a VERY different opinion on whose Oppressed, and what standing up for what’s Right entails.

Maybe some of the "Wokes" and "Offendeds" are also good people who hold fairly different views on a range of topics, though? Maybe some of the criticism of Dave Chappelle is actually coming from real human beings who are tired of their genitalia being a punchline at best, and justification of violence at worst. We can all stand to challenge ourselves and keep learning, no argument there. But it needs to go both ways.

By the way (and this is a comment to the general thread, not to you individually Ridha), in case anyone was curious about the actual attack, Chappelle's own account is that it had little to do with the topics of his comedy after all.

[Chappelle] asked Lee what possibly could have prompted his attack, to which Lee — who Chappelle said appeared to him to be mentally ill — offered a story about his grandmother from Brooklyn, who had been forced out of her neighborhood by gentrification. The attack was meant to draw attention to her plight, Chappelle recounted.