Dave Chappelle

[mrzuzzo]

I don't think anybody except Dave chose this hill to die on.

He could have said nothing and avoided further drama. He chose to voice his perspective, damn the torpedos, full speed ahead- whether or not he understood the issue.

Like I said earlier, it's a conflict between "he wasn't punching down, he was punching lines" and "I'm Team TERF"- if it was A) he could have said so, been reasonably contrite and apologetic for having previously been insensitive in his comedy, reiterated that, etc. He chose not to- he chose B) to double down on his exclusionary, hurtful, scientifically inaccurate views, and it put him on the wrong side of history.

His assumption that "because I am one type of oppressed minority, I cannot contribute to the oppression of a different type of minority" is bullshit and ignores intersectionality altogether in favor of "because I have been tyrannized, I can freely be a tyrant." He just either doesn't realize, or doesn't care, about the harms his views are actively causing. That's where the wrong enters into it.

He's kinda made a career by making a ton of socially unacceptable remarks so I think what he was doing is pretty much in line with what has led him to succeed.

 

[cheez]

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/dave-chappelle-netflix-suspends-trans-employee-1235086394/

Three employees suspended, only one of whom tweeted about Chappelle. Neither of us know all the details, but only one of us is making assumptions to suit our viewpoint...

The rest, I don't understand. I suppose I don't care too much, but if you choose to answer, do you consider attempts to physically prevent someone from speaking, to prevent people from attending that speech, to disrupt the speech via unauthorized entrance into a permitted/authorized area, the pulling of speaker cables, etc., to be mere protest or cancellation?

When you say that a mass group of people have "power in numbers," are you saying you support the ability of massed people to disrupt a speech, presentation, etc.?

Do you not support the ability for a group of rational people to shout down a group of [Nazis|White Supremacists|Genocidal Maniacs|Insert Otherwise Intolerant And Completely Unacceptable View] if they don't care to hear what that group wants to say?

They can get a permit, they can assemble in public, they can have amplified sound, they can even have folks trespassed from a public area they've gotten a permit for. They don't get to say "Be silent so that we may be heard over your voices."

 

[jdhu]

Do you not support the ability for a group of rational people to shout down a group of [Nazis|White Supremacists|Genocidal Maniacs|Insert Otherwise Intolerant And Completely Unacceptable View] if they don't care to hear what that group wants to say?

They can get a permit, they can assemble in public, they can have amplified sound, they can even have folks trespassed from a public area they've gotten a permit for. They don't get to say "Be silent so that we may be heard over your voices."

When you say "shout down," does that include say, breaking to an auditorium, tearing out speaker cables, etc.?

If I don't care what you have to say, I have every right not to listen. I don't have the right to prevent you from speaking, to prevent others from listening, the right to "punch a Nazi," etc.

The underlying viewpoint has no bearing on my perspective here, which can be summed up by Hall's statement (apparently often misattributed to Voltaire):

In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"[4] as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.[5] This quotation – which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself – is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.[6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

One thing I never understood is the need to shout someone down, prevent them from speaking, etc. If you have even the slightest confidence in the merits of your views, why would you stoop low and engage in some strongarm tactics? You can either debate rationally (and win, assuming your view truly has merit), or you can ignore/shake your head/laugh at the idiots.

 

[cheez]

When you say "shout down," does that include say, breaking to an auditorium, tearing out speaker cables, etc.?

If I don't care what you have to say, I have every right not to listen. I don't have the right to prevent you from speaking, to prevent others from listening, the right to "punch a Nazi," etc.

The underlying viewpoint has no bearing on my perspective here, which can be summed up by Hall's statement (apparently often misattributed to Voltaire):

In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"[4] as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.[5] This quotation – which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself – is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.[6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

One thing I never understood is the need to shout someone down, prevent them from speaking, etc. If you have even the slightest confidence in the merits of your views, why would you stoop low and engage in some strongarm tactics? You can either debate rationally (and win, assuming your view truly has merit), or you can ignore/shake your head/laugh at the idiots.

In my post, it was pretty clear that I don't support the right of a mob to infringe on the rights of anyone to assemble or speak. That would include damaging an auditorium, unless it was the owner of the auditorium damaging their own property. Punching a Nazi would violate the Nazi's rights, wouldn't it?

That other groups may speak more loudly than they do is the point. They don't get to demand the silence of others so that their message may be heard. They don't get to demand the use of others' auditoriums or megaphones or platforms to spread their message. They can use the public commons and friendly private venues, as we all can.

Their message is injurious to other segments of our society. The right of counter-protest- to have your voice heard IN RESPONSE to the voices of others- is also a right. That some choose to do it in order to ensure that these segments of society are protected from injury- see abortion clinic supporters escorting patients past vocal, harassing, haranguing, possibly violent protestors, for example- is not bad. It's morally upright to do the right thing.

You seem to view "shouting down" as some dastardly thing, instead of what it is: an overwhelming response of vocal sentiment in opposition to the speaker's views. The voices of others, being exercised to express opposition to the voice of the speaker. It's not a bad thing, it is literally democracy in action.

 

[jdhu]

In my post, it was pretty clear that I don't support the right of a mob to infringe on the rights of anyone to assemble or speak. That would include damaging an auditorium, unless it was the owner of the auditorium damaging their own property. Punching a Nazi would violate the Nazi's rights, wouldn't it?

That other groups may speak more loudly than they do is the point. They don't get to demand the silence of others so that their message may be heard. They don't get to demand the use of others' auditoriums or megaphones or platforms to spread their message. They can use the public commons and friendly private venues, as we all can.

Their message is injurious to other segments of our society. The right of counter-protest- to have your voice heard IN RESPONSE to the voices of others- is also a right. That some choose to do it in order to ensure that these segments of society are protected from injury- see abortion clinic supporters escorting patients past vocal, harassing, haranguing, possibly violent protestors, for example- is not bad. It's morally upright to do the right thing.

You seem to view "shouting down" as some dastardly thing, instead of what it is: an overwhelming response of vocal sentiment in opposition to the speaker's views. The voices of others, being exercised to express opposition to the voice of the speaker. It's not a bad thing, it is literally democracy in action.

If we have dueling rallies on the streets, and you have more people than I do, great! Who has said I have the right to demand your silence? What?

We seem to agree that you don't have the right to disrupt my expression in an auditorium, etc. (provided I properly reserved the auditorium, obtained permits or permission, etc.).

The issue is beyond simple to me. What matters most is the right to expression, and in the long-term, you may find yourself on the "wrong" side of an issue. You nonetheless have every right to believe/express your views without threat of violence, disruption in the above examples, etc.

 

[TylerW]

If we have dueling rallies on the streets, and you have more people than I do, great! Who has said I have the right to demand your silence? What?

We seem to agree that you don't have the right to disrupt my expression in an auditorium, etc. (provided I properly reserved the auditorium, obtained permits or permission, etc.).

The issue is beyond simple to me. What matters most is the right to expression, and in the long-term, you may find yourself on the "wrong" side of an issue. You nonetheless have every right to believe/express your views without threat of violence, disruption in the above examples, etc.

I don't believe any harm has been done here by any party. David Chapelle made a boring comedy show about some tired, spicy opinions about minorities. Some people didn't like that very much and voiced their opinion by asking that netflix to offline the show out of concern for minorities. Netflix said they wouldn't do that, probably because the controversy over the show is likely drawing more views than it would have otherwise.

Other than that Netflix should be paying the folks who crewed the recording of this broadcast more dependent on the number of times it has been viewed through this service, I see no harm done here.

No one is stealing anyone's freeze peaches.

 

[jdhu]

I don't believe any harm has been done here by any party. David Chapelle made a boring comedy show about some tired, spicy opinions about minorities. Some people didn't like that very much and voiced their opinion by asking that netflix to offline the show out of concern for minorities. Netflix said they wouldn't do that, probably because the controversy over the show is likely drawing more views than it would have otherwise.

Other than that Netflix should be paying the folks who crewed the recording of this broadcast more dependent on the number of times it has been viewed through this service, I see no harm done here.

No one is stealing anyone's freeze peaches.

At least for me, the conversation veered to the broader issue than just Chappelle/Netflix.

 

[cheez]

If we have dueling rallies on the streets, and you have more people than I do, great! Who has said I have the right to demand your silence? What?

We seem to agree that you don't have the right to disrupt my expression in an auditorium, etc. (provided I properly reserved the auditorium, obtained permits or permission, etc.).

The issue is beyond simple to me. What matters most is the right to expression, and in the long-term, you may find yourself on the "wrong" side of an issue. You nonetheless have every right to believe/express your views without threat of violence, disruption in the above examples, etc.

That's the point, though. "Shouting down" is none of those things you list. It's literally the louder, more well supported viewpoint being used to drown out the speaker so that their message cannot be heard.

Saying you oppose folks being shouted down is saying you are demanding that their message be allowed to be heard over the voices which oppose it.

You are saying you oppose the infringing of the legal rights of the speaker to speak their message; I do also.

Nobody's stopped anyone from being as racist, sexist, genderist, or from expressing whatever view they've cared to. Dave Chappelle being canceled because he self-identified as a TERF (someone who opposes the rights of transgender folks to be equal to cisgender folks because "they can never truly be a woman") is not anything except his being shouted down by a society which found his views too intolerant to tolerate.

 

[jdhu]

That's the point, though. "Shouting down" is none of those things you list. It's literally the louder, more well supported viewpoint being used to drown out the speaker so that their message cannot be heard.

Saying you oppose folks being shouted down is saying you are demanding that their message be allowed to be heard over the voices which oppose it.

You are saying you oppose the infringing of the legal rights of the speaker to speak their message; I do also.

Nobody's stopped anyone from being as racist, sexist, genderist, or from expressing whatever view they've cared to. Dave Chappelle being canceled because he self-identified as a TERF (someone who opposes the rights of transgender folks to be equal to cisgender folks because "they can never truly be a woman") is not anything except his being shouted down by a society which found his views too intolerant to tolerate.

Chappelle got cancelled? Don't think so?

Other than that, we don't disagree. Perhaps we just needed to define "shouting down." My definition includes the auditorium/preventing speech and listening examples I brought up earlier. Your definition doesn't, fair enough. I'll reiterate that no one came close to saying I have the right to demand you be silent, so have no idea where/how you came up with that one.

 

[cheez]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shout down

Definition of shout down
: to shout so that (someone who is speaking) cannot be heard
The crowd shouted him down when he tried to give his speech.

It does not conflate any infringements of rights with the act. You've done that on your own. If you say you oppose shouting down viewpoints, you are saying you want others silenced so that a viewpoint can be heard. The rest of your added-on baggage is your misunderstanding.

Does anyone else here believe Dave isn't being targeted for "canceling" by transgender supporting activists?

 

[jdhu]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shout down



It does not conflate any infringements of rights with the act. You've done that on your own. If you say you oppose shouting down viewpoints, you are saying you want others silenced so that a viewpoint can be heard. The rest of your added-on baggage is your misunderstanding.

Does anyone else here believe Dave isn't being targeted for "canceling" by transgender supporting activists?

LOL, tried a bit of an olive branch, but whatever. It again comes down to definition. We didn't define, and we have different definitions. Why is that hard to accept?

Oh, he may be a target of cancellation, you said he had "been cancelled," implying a done deal. Apparently, we have issues with definition and meaning, lol.

 

[cheez]

LOL, tried a bit of an olive branch, but whatever. It again comes down to definition. We didn't define, and we have different definitions. Why is that hard to accept?

Words have meaning, that's why. Please find some source that supports your definition of "shouting down" to include physical assault, destruction of property, or other infringement of rights, or admit that you had a misunderstanding of what the meaning was.

I appreciate your olive branch, but that doesn't make us able to "agree to disagree" on objectively observable facts like the definition of words and phrases.

 

[jdhu]

Words have meaning, that's why. Please find some source that supports your definition of "shouting down" to include physical assault, destruction of property, or other infringement of rights, or admit that you had a misunderstanding of what the meaning was.

I appreciate your olive branch, but that doesn't make us able to "agree to disagree" on objectively observable facts like the definition of words and phrases.

Haha! See above. OK, words matter, and you said Chappelle had "been cancelled." Has he really?

OK, tell you what, I agree your definition of shouting down is correct. Mine was too broad. That said, I don't understand why you seem unable to move on. We apparently agree on the rights of speakers, so what is the problem?

 

[DynastySS]

I have a hunch some people here characterizing the special as boring haven't actually watched the special. As per usual, Dave does a great job of roasting everyone - women, white people, gays, transgenders, black people, poor people, jews, etc. As a member of numerous of the aforementioned groups, I still found it to be very funny.

Different strokes for different folx though I guess.

 

[TylerW]

I have a hunch some people here characterizing the special as boring haven't actually watched the special. As per usual, Dave does a great job of roasting everyone - women, white people, gays, transgenders, black people, poor people, jews, etc. As a member of numerous of the aforementioned groups, I still found it to be very funny.

Different strokes for different folx though I guess.

Well you got me. I called it boring and, I haven't seen it.

But I watched his last two comedy specials and was bored throughout them, and this show sounds to be a progression of that same path. Perhaps I'm being overly judgmental, and I can own that. If you disagree, that's fine and I have no grounds to dispute it. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

 

[Eldritch]

That's literally the point of activism. Subverting the status quo by annoying enough people to affect change.

Yet still you can see so often how it has the opposite effect.

 

[TylerW]

Yet still you can see so often how it has the opposite effect.

Dude, you're in some serious truth denialism over the positive outcomes of protest movements, both historical and contemporary.

 

[cheez]

Haha! See above. OK, words matter, and you said Chappelle had "been cancelled." Has he really?

OK, tell you what, I agree your definition of shouting down is correct. Mine was too broad. That said, I don't understand why you seem unable to move on. We apparently agree on the rights of speakers, so what is the problem?

Yup. He himself says the trans community has canceled more powerful people than him, implying that he's currently being targeted by their efforts to "cancel" him. Many of the headlines say "Targeted for canceling by trans activists, Dave Chappelle cancels himself" or the like.

If you listen to what I’m saying, I’m not even talking about them, I’m talking about us and “they don’t listen.” It’s very annoying. And they have canceled people, more powerful than me. They canceled J.K. Rowling, my God. J.K. Rowling wrote all the Harry Potter books by herself. She sold so many books, the Bible worries about her.

Or, you know, turn to Fox News... https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...ing-cancellation-trans-comments-critics-irate

 

[jdhu]

Yup. He himself says the trans community has canceled more powerful people than him, implying that he's currently being targeted by their efforts to "cancel" him. Many of the headlines say "Targeted for canceling by trans activists, Dave Chappelle cancels himself" or the like.



Or, you know, turn to Fox News... https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...ing-cancellation-trans-comments-critics-irate

But he hasn't BEEN cancelled, either literally or figuratively. Because you know, words matter...

FWIW, I think we could have avoided the back-and-forth by simply clarifying definitions. I think it was obvious, since I brought up strongarm tactics, that my definition of "shouting down" was much broader than yours (and admittedly inaccurate, technically speaking). Perhaps I used "shouting down" interchangeably with "cancel culture."

Anyway, I hope I'm wrong, but the impression I got from you here is more of an interest in scoring points and being perceived as correct, versus interest in discussion. I'll further admit to having baggage, as you remarked, in that free expression is a very important and concerning issue to me, so perhaps I do soapbox about it at every opportunity. On the flip side, my impression is you have baggage as far as scoring points v. discussion.

 

[cheez]

You are wrong; I don't care about being correct, I care about advancing the conversation. We spent several posts unpacking your misunderstanding of what "shouting down" someone meant; your "broader definition" isn't supported anywhere but in your mind and misinterpretation of the act. You then proceeded to tar those participating in a fundamental act of free speech- voicing their opinion- as somehow bad because of your misinterpretation. Once you agreed that you meant "folks committing crimes to sabotage the exercise of rights of those they disagree with" and not "shouting them down" the conversation could advance.

You're right, it's about definitions, which are readily referenceable on the Internet and one can use to check to validate they're saying what they mean, instead of saying something which actually conflicts with their value structure in meaning.



BTW, here you are ignoring the entire "cancel culture" concept in favor of the strict definition of "his show has been canceled", that you can find "cancel culture" defined all over the darn place doesn't stop you from trying to "score points" as you've accused me of in your rebuttal. D'oh. Goood luck reconciling that, I'll leave ya to it.