Watched it yesterday before it got pulled off the air.
Hilarious. Brilliant.Loved it.

Not a fan of ‘Cancel CULTure”.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dave-chappelle-transphobic-joke-backlash_n_61605943e4b01964442464c2

‘Dave Chappelle is laughing off recent attempts to “cancel” him.
Earlier this week, LGBTQ advocates condemned his transphobic and homophobic jokes and misconceptions in his new comedy special, “The Closer,” which premiered on Netflix Tuesday. The National Black Justice Coalition, a civil rights advocacy group, even issued a statement on Wednesday urging the streaming service to pull the special.‘

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t


I don’t get it.

You think Chapelle is being hateful towards T’s?
I cringed at some things he said, but when are people going to start calling for bans on ANY comedy they disagree with?
Then it’ll be like Taliban.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Demeaning others for enjoyment is cruel and hateful. It's that simple.

Yes.

OK, so ban comedians that tell jokes that could be offensive to any individuals in a particular group?
So no comedy right?
This is why we can’t find a single person to host the Oscars or any other awards show. No more comedy allowed!
America is becoming a no comedy zone.

Who gets to speak for those groups?
What if comedians are offended by people criticizing them for telling jokes?
Should we ban them for offending comedians?

There's plenty of comedy without requiring targets of out groups.

Comedy is based on pain and discomfort we experience. But it can and should be done without inflicting more pain on others.

I think there are exceptions.

Public figures, especially our politicians/leaders who misbehave is the main one off hand. Fame of whatever sort probably lies in this category. Truth to power kind of thing. Comedy is a response to the power the targets wield.

Self selected careers is probably acceptable target.

I think religion is a mixed case as a target. To a degree, it is self selected. To a degree it is cultural/inherited.

Good point.
Why is it ok for the SouthPark Boys to make fun of Mormons, but not ok for Chapelle to make fun of Caitlin Jenner?

I've not seen much of either comedy to have an informed opinion, nor do I follow entertainment media to read the reports which would also inform my opinion.

Generally, popular comedians travel closer to abuse than I find entertaining. It's also a moving border of acceptability as our cultures evolve, see the Simpsons and Apu.

While Bill Cosby turns out to be a lousy person, I've long found his comedy funny as it largely was done without targeting others. Strange dichotomy.

You are completely unaware of the biggest Broadway hit of the 21st C, “The Book of Mormon on Broadway”, a comedy that makes fun of Mormons?
Why are Mormons fair game but T’s are off limits?

I'm aware of it. I just had no interest.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is it ok for the SouthPark Boys to make fun of
> Mormons, but not ok for Chapelle to make fun of
> Caitlin Jenner?

Again, not an expert here but in the case of Jenner (et al) if a "joke" comes across as anti-trans (or LGBTQ+, etc) then it's attacking a person for who they are, the essence of their being.

Making fun of a specific group is a fine line (for me) but mocking a faith, its beliefs and practices, or the people who hold such beliefs, isn't the same as mocking an individual for who they are. It can hurt to hear non-supportive comments about your religion, sure, sometimes, but it doesn't perpetuate stereotypes, and even hate, against you as a person. (Exception: If the comments go beyond "humour" into obvious hate speech against a specified group: i.e. Jewish people, Muslims. Too, this can be a very fine line).

I'm guessing you won't agree. Again, it's a case of if you're attacking an individual or group for who they are as a human being it's not humour. Rather, it's perpetuating stereotypes and pain, as well as ignorance.

Chappell's a genius. Only he could get away with that. (well, maybe Kevin Hart and Chris Rock)

I agree.
All of this cancelling just makes people want to see it more.
I wouldn’t have watched it the day it dropped if all these groups came out against it.
I’m a defender of free speech and I think there should be protected groups, but you are not ‘Free’ to use the N word unless your skin is darker than a paper shopping bag, even though scientists all say there is no such thing as ‘race’.
But Chappell and other comedians loves to drop the N word and we all laugh our asses off about it.
Should the color of your skin determine whether or not you are allowed to exercise your freedom of speech?

You seem to be missing the point, SC.

When your humour is based on denying another persons' existence, you've gone too far.

What point?
That Chappell is a comic genius?
I agree with that point.
He’s not denying anybody’s existence, just stating a fact, “Gender is a fact. Every human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass through the legs of a woman to be on Earth. This is a fact,”

Maybe the Third Reich was just really dark comedy. It worked for Mel Brooks.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But Chappell and other comedians loves to drop the
> N word and we all laugh our asses off about it.

Not "we all". I've never seen Chappell. I don't find use of the N word as hysterically comical as you indicate (or at all comical).

> Should the color of your skin determine whether or
> not you are allowed to exercise your freedom of
> speech?

This is not an absolute. Nor is it complicated. Sometimes skin colour does play into it. As a person with white skin I would never utter that word, with all its egregiously negative connotations coming from the lips of a white person. However, when/if Black persons/persons of colour feel it's fine to use it, OK. Their choice. I'm not an expert as to why but that's just the way it is. It has to do with the history of who used that word and the context in which it was/is used (derogatory as hell).

It's not a free speech issue as in Whites are stifled and Blacks aren't. Again, I'm not an expert. Many others can explain it better.

But bottom line: There are nuances with language. This happens to be a ginormous nuance. It's worth taking the time to learn more about this usage of language - how in one case it's egregiously offensive, in another it's acceptable. But only depending on who is uttering the word (and perhaps why).

I hope I didn't mangle that too badly.

I guess that now Bill Maher and Joe Rogan are out of favor, Chappell will have to do as man crush du jour.

Ive appreciated Chappell’s humor for decades.
I’m just not a fan of shutting down comedians just because somebody is offended by their material.
Do they speak for the whole group?
And does their offense override everybody else’s right to laugh?

It's feedback, not canceling. Helps performers, venues, networks understand the limits of what's profitable and desirable to the audience.

You can listen to whom you like and laugh as you like.

But it reflects on you what you find funny and others don't. Maybe you yourself hold and espouse offensive views.

Offensive to whom? Don’t we all hold views that are offensive to somebody? even you. Even Lot’s Wife!
Most of her opinions are offensive to me, but I don’t advocate cancelling her.
So should we cancel everybody who offends anybody?
What happens after we cancel everybody?
Nobody is morally pure enough to host the Oscars.
Comedy shows all cancelled.
No more comedy because somebody might get offended.

It's pointless to argue with you about this, SC.

Dave Chappell says he's "team TERF."

He's saying he's %100 on board with radical fems who deny trans women are women, are not female, and should be rejected and denied access to women's spaces.

It's the same as saying that black people don't have a right to live where they wish and/or should be segregated against, or fat people are losers and a "waste of space," and so on.

He's saying an entire group of people do not have a right to exist.

That's not humour.

That's hate.

why do you call them trans women?

In our culture, when we use the words "man" or "woman," we have an inherent mental image of a cisgendered heterosexual white male or female only.

I'm not arguing about offensive to whom.

Is the humor based on demeaning someone? Then it's likely wrong unless it's part of a privileged group.

Here's an open letter from someone who can explain this better than I can -- an African American trans comedienne.

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/oct/09/dave-chappelle-letter-trans-comedian-netflix

For comparison...


Why the N word is no joke

https://medium.com/@MainlineLeRon/why-the-n-word-is-no-joke-20bcb3e6b14e



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2021 05:38PM by anybody.

Yes, Anybody, I just read that before coming to RfM this morning. The article is very clear and I agree with you. The whole trans spectrum is not something I really understand because, I think, part of it is an experience (the feeling of being in the wrong body) which I can't easily imagine. But trans people exist and therefore deserve our compassion and attempted understanding.

> But trans people exist and therefore deserve our
> compassion and attempted understanding.

That's a great principle: it should inform our attitudes towards all sorts of people whose personal experiences we have not shared.

Hey, I'm proud of your disapproval of me, S-Cat. People are defined as much by what they are not as by what they are. And I am happy that I am not a crypto-Trumpian who thinks that comedians are more than entertainment, affirmative action is retrograde, and Cancel Culture is a thing.

You might have been a successful comedian: parody comes naturally to you.

I’m offended!
Cancel her!

I'm trying to figure out how he fits into string theory, the cosmological constant, and dark energy.

How does it not?

Dave Chappell identifies as "It?"

How did society become so uptight? We used to laugh at ourselves. Society is one big fuck up and always has been. I went to the Soviet Union in 1976 with my parents and uncle. The first thing I noticed there is everyone was uptight. There was no happiness or laughing. We are becoming like that.

https://theconversation.com/psychology-behind-the-unfunny-consequences-of-jokes-that-denigrate-63855

Q: Why did the woman cross the road?

A: Who cares! What the hell is she doing out of the kitchen?

Q: Why hasn’t NASA sent a woman to the moon?

A: It doesn’t need cleaning yet!


These two jokes represent disparagement humor – any attempt to amuse through the denigration of a social group or its representatives. You know it as sexist or racist jokes – basically anything that makes a punchline out of a marginalized group.

Disparagement humor is paradoxical: It simultaneously communicates two conflicting messages. One is an explicit hostile or prejudiced message. But delivered alongside is a second implicit message that “it doesn’t count as hostility or prejudice because I didn’t mean it — it’s just a joke.”

By disguising expressions of prejudice in a cloak of fun and frivolity, disparagement humor, like the jokes above, appears harmless and trivial. However, a large and growing body of psychology research suggests just the opposite – that disparagement humor can foster discrimination against targeted groups.



Most of the time prejudiced people conceal their true beliefs and attitudes because they fear others’ criticism. They express prejudice only when the norms in a given context clearly communicate approval to do so. They need something in the immediate environment to signal that it is safe to freely express their prejudice.

Disparagement humor appears to do just that by affecting people’s understanding of the social norms – implicit rules of acceptable conduct – in the immediate context. And in a variety of experiments, my colleagues and I have found support for this idea, which we call prejudiced norm theory.

For instance, in studies, men higher in hostile sexism – antagonism against women – reported greater tolerance of gender harassment in the workplace upon exposure to sexist versus neutral (nonsexist) jokes. Men higher in hostile sexism also recommended greater funding cuts to a women’s organization at their university after watching sexist versus neutral comedy skits. Even more disturbing, other researchers found that men higher in hostile sexism expressed greater willingness to rape a woman upon exposure to sexist versus nonsexist humor.


Psychology research suggests that disparagement humor is far more than “just a joke.” Regardless of its intent, when prejudiced people interpret disparagement humor as “just a joke” intended to make fun of its target and not prejudice itself, it can have serious social consequences as a releaser of prejudice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2021 09:53AM by anybody.

Thanks for this link, Anybody

What people call "cancel culture" is really just "consequence culture." If you do something others find offensive there may be consequences you don't like.

Calling it "canceling" is just a way of saying, "I don't like that others are consequating my behavior... waaahhhhh."

If you choose to say things that are asshole-ish. Don't be surprised if people treat you like you are an asshole.


HH =)

Bill Maher’s show ‘Politically Incorrect’ got cancelled in 2001 for him saying he didn’t agree that the 9-11 terrorists were cowards and it took a lot of courage to commit a suicidal terrorist act.
Getting cancelled was the consequence of being too ‘Politically Incorrect’ for a show called ‘Politically Incorrect’.
It’s still happening. Transgender people are trying to get Chappell pulled from Netflix because he keeps making jokes about them in his ongoing beef with Transgender people.

Okay. And???


HH =)

Is it possible we have both things happening at the same time?

Could we have consequence culture (justifiable) and cancel culture (maybe not justifiable) happening at the same time in society?

So, question:

male and female exist? A person is usually male or female at birth?

But the man or woman designation is each individual's choice? - choice simply meaning each person declares if they are man or woman and that is what they are?

Yes sex is a fact. Just because you choose a different gender that does not change your DNA from xy to xx or vice versa

"All we are saying is give CRISPR a chance."

LOL! Too funny.

Anatomy and DNA do not decide what you are or how you act.

Your brain does.

There are plenty of women who with female parts who are biologically male. There are also a fair number of intersex people as well. There is not a 100% clear, sharp dividing line between male and female. It's not a simple matter of "inspection."

Human sexuality is complicated and exists on a spectrum.

There's no ideology, religion, or politics involved.

It's the same as being right or left-handed.

It's biology.

The only difference now is that modern society doesn't try to repress people like this and make them something that they are not.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

Some children insist, from the moment they can speak, that they are not the gender indicated by their biological sex. So where does this knowledge reside? And is it possible to discern a genetic or anatomical basis for transgender identity? Exploration of these questions is relatively new, but there is a bit of evidence for a genetic basis. Identical twins are somewhat more likely than fraternal twins to both be trans.

Male and female brains are, on average, slightly different in structure, although there is tremendous individual variability. Several studies have looked for signs that transgender people have brains more similar to their experienced gender. Spanish investigators—led by psychobiologist Antonio Guillamon of the National Distance Education University in Madrid and neuropsychologist Carme Junqué Plaja of the University of Barcelona—used MRI to examine the brains of 24 female-to-males and 18 male-to-females—both before and after treatment with cross-sex hormones. Their results, published in 2013, showed that even before treatment the brain structures of the trans people were more similar in some respects to the brains of their experienced gender than those of their natal gender. For example, the female-to-male subjects had relatively thin subcortical areas (these areas tend to be thinner in men than in women). Male-to-female subjects tended to have thinner cortical regions in the right hemisphere, which is characteristic of a female brain. (Such differences became more pronounced after treatment.)

“Trans people have brains that are different from males and females, a unique kind of brain,” Guillamon says. “It is simplistic to say that a female-to-male transgender person is a female trapped in a male body. It's not because they have a male brain but a transsexual brain.” Of course, behavior and experience shape brain anatomy, so it is impossible to say if these subtle differences are inborn.

Other investigators have looked at sex differences through brain functioning. In a study published in 2014, psychologist Sarah M. Burke of VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam and biologist Julie Bakker of the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience used functional MRI to examine how 39 prepubertal and 41 adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded to androstadienone, an odorous steroid with pheromonelike properties that is known to cause a different response in the hypothalamus of men versus women. They found that the adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded much like peers of their experienced gender. The results were less clear with the prepubertal children.


This kind of study is important, says Baudewijntje Kreukels, an expert on gender dysphoria at VU University Medical Center, “because sex differences in responding to odors cannot be influenced by training or environment.” The same can be said of another 2014 experiment by Burke and her colleagues. They measured the responses of boys and girls with gender dysphoria to echolike sounds produced by the inner ear in response to a clicking noise. Boys with gender dysphoria responded more like typical females, who have a stronger response to these sounds. But girls with gender dysphoria also responded like typical females.

Overall the weight of these studies and others points strongly toward a biological basis for gender dysphoria. But given the variety of transgender people and the variation in the brains of men and women generally, it will be a long time, if ever, before a doctor can do a brain scan on a child and say, “Yes, this child is trans.”

There's also the social structures and roles that are pressured/assigned but get rejected.

But also such practices, for good and bad as:
bacha posh in Afghanistan
two-spirits in some indigenous cultures
third genders
the actual story of Mulan
hijra