So were people "soft" for the audacity to be offended at Michael Richards's "jokes"? (Since jokes seem to be the only magical form of expression above criticism.)
Dave Chappelle's new Netflix special Sticks & Stones....what u think?
- Thread starter World B Free
- Start date
So were people "soft" for the audacity to be offended at Michael Richards's "jokes"? (Since jokes seem to be the only magical form of expression above criticism.)
The Pound Cake speech brought about the same reaction and pushback for the same reasons too.
Chris didn't single out LGBTQ Ni99as sayin' they had to go.
You're conflating Sexuality with Race.
This is an insincere comparison. Richards just lost it and started shouting the word ****** at black hecklers. Comparing that to the artistry that Dave displayed is just absurd.
The post I responded to read "Shows you how soft this generation is. Dave Chapelle has been joking on every group including gay people for over 20 years. Now all of a sudden his comedy show is getting a backlash? For telling jokes ?"
I conflated a group of people with a group of people.
but WHY would there be outrage when you KNOW the guy is just talking shit?? thats the thing I want to get at and illustrate how some people here are purposefully showing no empathy as to WHY a group whose experience suppression would be sensitive to that kind of thing.
Also of all the africans in the diaspora black americans are by far the most vocal and demonstrative about our suppression/oppression.
to your last part....true but we're talking about queers as group in any case and that group has definitely been suppressed.
It is a sincere comparison. (You and I have discussed before that it is not productive or wise to immediately leap to questioning someone's sincerity when you find yourself in disagreement. Just because you don't see my logic or agree with it does not mean that I have to be full of shit. Sometimes people are full of shit but so quickly leaping to that conclusion just hinders dialogue and understanding.)
Obviously Richards had a meltdown and I'm not comparing the bits in terms of quality. It's just the most extreme example of how just because something is labeled a joke does not mean it is above criticism.
"Now all of a sudden his comedy show is getting a backlash? For telling jokes?"
The respective "artistry" has no relevance here. My very simple point is that just because speech is expressed as a joke does not make it exempt from judgement or analysis, as the condemnation of "this generation" as "soft" for getting offended over jokes clearly suggests.
One of which happens to contain members of the other. You can't pretend to ignore that as if you don't know the difference.
The post I responded to read "Shows you how soft this generation is. Dave Chapelle has been joking on every group including gay people for over 20 years. Now all of a sudden his comedy show is getting a backlash? For telling jokes ?"
I conflated a group of people with a group of people.
okay I saw a tweet that said that dave left a successful show and 50 million deal in part because the racial skit (he wrote and CC encouraged) made someone in the crew LAUGH in a way that made dave uncomfortable... 15 years later he's making jokes that makes others uncomfortable and he's saying get over it..
And some Black queers will tell you how they are doubly suppressed. It is NOT as though racism doesn't exist WITHIN the Queer Community.
Maybe my last response makes my point more clear? I'm confused about the relevance of your point regarding overlap between the groups-- My point in this exchange was that it is weak and wrong to suggest that jokes should be above backlash regardless of content due to the fact that they are jokes (because speech is ultimately speech, ideas are ultimately ideas, and a lot of truth is said in jest).
By saying he's punching down, they're saying trans people are less than. Trans folks can get joked about just like everyone else.
Yep. Point taken. Again.
Perhaps it wasn’t an insincere comparison, it was just a terrible one. Richards’ hate speech was never intended or taken as a joke. He, himself, almost immediately admitted that he fucked up. He left the stage in shame that night and hasn’t set foot on a comedy stage as a stand up since that incident.
And no speech, comedic or otherwise, should be exempted from analysis, but I believe that even a cursory review of Sticks and Stones (from a reasonable non agenda-driven mind) reveals an obvious and effective attempt at humor, not an example of homo or transphobic bigotry.
okay I saw a tweet that said that dave left a successful show and 50 million deal in part because the racial skit (he wrote and CC encouraged) made someone in the crew LAUGH in a way that made dave uncomfortable... 15 years later he's making jokes that makes others uncomfortable and he's saying get over it..
That's a good point.
On one hand, I love Chappelle's work because of its boldness.
But I'm not comfortable with the anti-"snowflake" crowd he is catering to these days. And your example is a very good one of how it is sometimes proper to be offended and to treat jokes as important.
racism exists within racial groups or are you forgetting the age-old light skin vs dark skin blacks issues...you seem to want to get into a pissing contest of who suffered more whose oppression is more legitimate... I don't see it that way.
okay I saw a tweet that said that dave left a successful show and 50 million deal in part because the racial skit (he wrote and CC encouraged) made someone in the crew LAUGH in a way that made dave uncomfortable... 15 years later he's making jokes that makes others uncomfortable and he's saying get over it..
Correct. During the third season of his show, he felt he crossed the line between humor and ugly anti-black stereotyping. IMO he deftly and brilliantly walked that line without stepping over it in Sticks and Stones.
Do yourself a favor and stay away from comparisons.
And your last part is correct. Just because something is labeled as a “Joke”, doesn’t make it exempt from judgement.
Glad you’re admitting what’s gotten your goat. Do you feel he was unfair to whites in this routine?
I gotcha. I still think that the LGBTQ uses the ADL playbook for any infraction whatsoever and will scream accusations of Homophobia as quick as a Jew would about mentioning their money and how they spend it or invest it is Anti-Semitism.
Also interesting how you took me to task for assuming that your comparison was made in bad faith then go on to clearly accuse Dave of creating comedy to cater to a certain audience.
well the downside as chris rock experienced is that people WILL use what comedians say as a basis for their beliefs and reinforce a certain way of thinking...hey patrice oneal was just a stand up and cats on here was talking about his bits as if they were the basis of philosophical beliefs like fucking Plato....dudes would call his ROUTINE his TEACHINGS think about that.
I guess people in the gay community are afraid that someone as influential as Chappelle can do a routine that will reinforce others who have issues with the "alphabet people" and taken to its extreme could mean a return to the bad old days for them.
thats subjective
Shows you how soft this generation is. Dave Chapelle has been joking on every group including gay people for over 20 years. Now all of a sudden his comedy show is getting a backlash? For telling jokes ?
That is the statement I was replying to. My point was not that Dave Chappelle is a bigot or whether or not his special was effective in its humor.
My only point in that exchange was that jokes should not be off-limits from backlash. Your bone of contention with my example is that the Richards incident was not comedy. Fine. Substitute a million examples-- Joe Rogan (Chappelle's anti-PC buddy) joking that watching Planet of the Apes with a black audience meant "we were in planet of the apes." It's an incredibly simple point-- couching a sentiment in humor does not automatically make it inoffensive or above response.
thats subjective
Goes without saying. All humor is.
Suffice it to say that it’s a comedian’s job to skirt the parameter of inappropriateness. I don’t think there’s anyone in comedy who does it better than Dave.
Agreed. It’s a point as simple as it is irrelevant.
No one is arguing that Dave’s work can’t be called into question. I think the original point of the comment you quoted is that the current climate is one of intolerance when it comes to certain topics/groups. It’s an argument that many comedians have made recently; to the degree that some of them refuse to work college campuses.
As far as the Joe Rogan joke you referenced, THAT’S an example of him comparing black people to apes which is steeped in racist/anti-black stereotyping. One doesn’t have to be especially sensitive to object to that shit. Why keep comparing what Dave said to that kind of language to belabor such an admittedly simple point?
Got it. Fuck’s the sighing about?
dave is the comedy god right now...
every comedian has to fallback.....
every comedian has to fallback.....
not necessarily...would you say that andrew dice clays classic 80s routine was skirting the parameter of inappropriateness?
Watched it and even though it wasn’t laughing out loud funny it was clever and witty. I enjoyed it though, Dave did what he is known to do with a lil bit more edge
I’ll watch it again
I’ll watch it again
You didn't misunderstand what "snowflake" means and turn that into a percieved admission that my true issue with Chappelle's special was that he went at whites too hard?
I don't see where "unfair to whites" comes from if not that. The sigh would then come into play because it is hard to have a conversation about comedy and political correctness with someone so unfamiliar with the subject as to mistake the extremely common "snowflake" label as to mean "white people" and then position it as some sort of "gotcha" moment or reveal.
"Now all of a sudden his comedy show is getting a backlash? For telling jokes?"
The poster was very clearly saying that his comedy show should not get backlash because he was telling jokes, as comedy shows do by definition. On one level, the poster was very clearly arguing that jokes should be taken as jokes and not be made into such a big deal. And that's a very common argument. It should be "a point as simple as it is irrelevant" but the reality is that many people, both comedians and fans of comedy, treat jokes as a special class of speech wherein ideas should be immune to backlash. As someone who pays a fair amount of attention to comedians and comedy, I promise you I could continually update this thread with examples that demonstrate this as they come up, which they will continually.
The other aspect of the defense was "Dave Chapelle has been joking on every group including gay people for over 20 years." I call this "the South Park defense" because it has been said ad nauseum over 20 years in defense of every attack made on that show-- "They talk about everybody!" As if all attacks are equally valid and come from the same place, so (for example) the show can't have anti-Muslim bias because they've also targeted Catholics, Mexicans, circus folk, etc.
One glaring problem with "One doesn’t have to be especially sensitive to object to that shit" is the relativity of "especially sensitive." To much of Joe Rogan's audience, any criticism of that joke could be dismissed as outrage culture and people not being able to take a joke. And I compare Dave to his tour buddy Joe Rogan because, like Seinfeld, Bill Maher and many others, they share a self-interested fixation on "cancel culture" that tends to dismiss any criticism of comedic substance as overly sensitive. That, it seems to me based on my observations of the two and their respective subject matter, is the main point of overlap and why Chappelle is hitting up Joe Rogan of all people to go on tour.
Michael Jackson accusers fire back at Dave Chappelle after controversial Netflix special
By Christian Holub
August 28, 2019 at 06:59 PM EDT
FBTwitter
HBO (2); MATHIEU BITTON/NETFLIX
Dave Chappelle has singlehandedly revived the debate about Leaving Neverland. In his new Netflix comedy special Sticks & Stones, which hit the streaming platform this week, the comedian has a long bit about the sexual assault allegations against Michael Jackson put forward by Wade Robson and James Safechuck in the four-hour HBO film. At one point Chappelle quips, “I don’t believe these motherf—ers,” then lists some reasons for his doubt. Now both Robson and Safechuck have fired back at Chappelle, while Jackson’s estate has enthusiastically agreed with the comedian.
“I’m heartbroken for all those children who look to see how they will be received when they finally find the courage to speak out about their sexual abuse,” Safechuck told TMZ. “I just want to reach out to other survivors and let them know that we can’t let this type of behavior silence us. Together we are strong.”
Robson told TMZ of Chappelle, “He can say whatever he wants. It reveals him, not us.”
John Branca, the co-executor of Jackson’s estate, also gave comment to TMZ. He forcefully agreed with Chappelle’s jokes.
“We agree with Dave Chappelle — these guys are damn liars,” Branca said. “After years of exploiting Michael’s generosity, they waited until he was gone and unable to defend himself before accusing him. They did this in secrecy. They did not do any independent investigation. They did not verify the stories. They didn’t talk to anyone because they did not want another side. This isn’t R. Kelly — there are no videos. This isn’t Harvey Weinstein, there aren’t multiple accusers.”
In his comedy routine, Chappelle says of Jackson, “I don’t think he did it. Even if he did do it… [shrugs] You know what I mean? I mean, it’s Michael Jackson! I know that more than half the people in this room have been molested in their lives. But it wasn’t no goddamn Michael Jackson, was it?”
Chappelle also notes that actor Macaulay Culkin, who befriended Jackson as a child just as Robson and Safechuck did, has never accused the late singer of inappropriate behavior. Culkin testified in Jackson’s defense at his 2005 child molestation trial (as did Robson), and earlier this year told actor Michael Rosenbaum in a podcast interview that “I know it’s a big deal to everyone else, but to me it was a normal friendship.”
In her grade-B review for Leaving Neverland, EW TV critic Kristen Baldwin called the film “incredibly powerful and excruciating to watch,” but also noted, “for a documentary to be a true work of journalism, however, it is incumbent upon the filmmaker to solicit comments from the opposing side — in this case Jackson’s estate, his family, etc. — which the estate insists Reed did not do… And Neverland all but ignores Robson and Safechuck’s lawsuits against the Jackson estate — both of which were dismissed and are currently under appeal. Though Robson’s suit is mentioned in the film, neither he nor Safechuck are questioned about the ongoing litigation or their motives for pursuing it.”
By Christian Holub
August 28, 2019 at 06:59 PM EDT
FBTwitter
HBO (2); MATHIEU BITTON/NETFLIX
Dave Chappelle has singlehandedly revived the debate about Leaving Neverland. In his new Netflix comedy special Sticks & Stones, which hit the streaming platform this week, the comedian has a long bit about the sexual assault allegations against Michael Jackson put forward by Wade Robson and James Safechuck in the four-hour HBO film. At one point Chappelle quips, “I don’t believe these motherf—ers,” then lists some reasons for his doubt. Now both Robson and Safechuck have fired back at Chappelle, while Jackson’s estate has enthusiastically agreed with the comedian.
“I’m heartbroken for all those children who look to see how they will be received when they finally find the courage to speak out about their sexual abuse,” Safechuck told TMZ. “I just want to reach out to other survivors and let them know that we can’t let this type of behavior silence us. Together we are strong.”
Robson told TMZ of Chappelle, “He can say whatever he wants. It reveals him, not us.”
John Branca, the co-executor of Jackson’s estate, also gave comment to TMZ. He forcefully agreed with Chappelle’s jokes.
“We agree with Dave Chappelle — these guys are damn liars,” Branca said. “After years of exploiting Michael’s generosity, they waited until he was gone and unable to defend himself before accusing him. They did this in secrecy. They did not do any independent investigation. They did not verify the stories. They didn’t talk to anyone because they did not want another side. This isn’t R. Kelly — there are no videos. This isn’t Harvey Weinstein, there aren’t multiple accusers.”
In his comedy routine, Chappelle says of Jackson, “I don’t think he did it. Even if he did do it… [shrugs] You know what I mean? I mean, it’s Michael Jackson! I know that more than half the people in this room have been molested in their lives. But it wasn’t no goddamn Michael Jackson, was it?”
Chappelle also notes that actor Macaulay Culkin, who befriended Jackson as a child just as Robson and Safechuck did, has never accused the late singer of inappropriate behavior. Culkin testified in Jackson’s defense at his 2005 child molestation trial (as did Robson), and earlier this year told actor Michael Rosenbaum in a podcast interview that “I know it’s a big deal to everyone else, but to me it was a normal friendship.”
In her grade-B review for Leaving Neverland, EW TV critic Kristen Baldwin called the film “incredibly powerful and excruciating to watch,” but also noted, “for a documentary to be a true work of journalism, however, it is incumbent upon the filmmaker to solicit comments from the opposing side — in this case Jackson’s estate, his family, etc. — which the estate insists Reed did not do… And Neverland all but ignores Robson and Safechuck’s lawsuits against the Jackson estate — both of which were dismissed and are currently under appeal. Though Robson’s suit is mentioned in the film, neither he nor Safechuck are questioned about the ongoing litigation or their motives for pursuing it.”