antix80 wrote: » I watched half of it and I fell asleep.. not because it was boring but because I was tired. Will watch the rest later. My impression was.. it's entertaining. I wasn't blown away by the quality of his material this time round. He's framing everything as part of a social commentary on cancellation culture and outrage and #metoo, but he's just doing what many other comedians have done before him which is to push the envelope and say controversial things. Most UK comedians who did this in the past were just quietly sidelined from TV in the 90s and certainly by 2010. My own take on the matter but there are plenty of right-wing commentators and comedians who use the same irreverent humour who have for years been decrying outrage culture while trolling/triggering "libtards". For the more controversial/less experienced it was career-ending. For the ones who toe the line, they can get a good following online by people in on the joke, even if they get smeared as Nazis or "alt-right". Andrew Klavan, Gavin McInnes, Steven Crowder, even Donald Trump. I have a theory on why Chappelle is getting more support in his fight against PC culture - he's not a "straight white male."
Matt Barrett wrote: » You're mistaken. Here's a few samples.
antix80 wrote: » Thanks for the detailed response.. However, the metoo/outrage culture that Chappelle and most of the rightwingers are referring to is of this decade and mainly refers to destroying someone's career based on old jokes/material/quotes taken out of context/behaviour not acceptable today that was the norm years ago. The dixie chicks made a decision to speak their political opinion and attack the fairly popular president essentially during wartime. People chose not to listen to them on that basis. It's not clever to attack your supporters. An example of outrage culture would be if the dixie chicks were nominated for a music award that people wanted a person of colour to win, so reporters scoured through decades of quotes and history and song lyrics, before deciding that dixie is a racial term which harks back to the segregation era. Meanwhile the new york times found a witness willing to anonymously accuse them of using racist language. Twitter outraged.
dhaughton99 wrote: » Reminds me to watch Eddie Murphys Raw later.
Matt Barrett wrote: » The woke left? How about some 'people' have problems with Dave? Why has it always got to be the brainwashing terms? Before the use of socially acceptable censorship like calling people names for having a particular view it was the right wing conservatives and church goers tried to ban things and made careers out of it. 'Explicit lyrics' 'video games lead to violence' 'porn leads to violence'. Funny how it's allegedly flipped.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Poor old Dave is in trouble with the lefties, not sure if you've seen his new stand up show on Netflix Sticks & Stones but it's laugh out loud funny and worth checking out to draw your own conclusions. I think he nailed a few topical subjects. The woke media say you should skip it https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59ngpb/you-can-definitely-skip-dave-chappelles-new-netflix-special-sticks-and-stones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyOkypzFfHo Dave Chappelle under fire for discrediting Michael Jackson accusers in Netflix specialhttps://www.theguardian.com/stage/2019/aug/28/dave-chappelle-under-fire-for-discrediting-michael-jackson-accusers-in-netflix-special
suicide_circus wrote: » the "liberal left", for the want of a better term, is now the establishment in media, communications, social and corporate life. It didn't used to be but now it is. It is therefore absolutely inevitable that any real biting comedy and satire is going to come from the other end of the spectrum. There's no way round it.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Elements of the right sold out to Trump and other spin merchants. They need attack the left because everyday people are calling them out, but you can't attack the public, you need create a box to claim people you don't agree with belong to. On a smaller scale. We'd a bus route set for cancellation. People went from door to door with a petition. The local politician who's party was pushing for the cancellation cited several calls from terrified pensioners having strangers knocking on their doors etc. When in reality it was a group of local pensioners bringing around the petition. The goal was to make anyone going against the politician seem like they were thugs harassing people, so why would you side with them or sign their petition? If somebody doesn't agree with you call them 'woke', 'permanently outraged' etc etc. It's it's own form of censorship. The same kind of people are still outraged by the same kind of things. If you think there's no Mike Pence style evangelical with any problems with Dave Chappelle you'd be wrong.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Seen it last night, it was mostly stuff from his recent tour (aside from the Juicy Smulea bit). If anything I think he sanitized some of it. I'll give the gig a relisten later. For me Dave's a genius and I love that he neither panders to the right or left and is not afraid to offend either side either. Often he will set the crowd up by pretending to have an opinion, which invariably will be met with cheers and whoops, only for him to then say something which will totally infruiate the same people. Nobody has a right not to be offended but they do have the right to choose what to watch or not and so I guess they can just no longer view his stuff if they feel so strongly about it.
Raconteuse wrote: » They should be able to express that they found it offensive too.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » The same mob no doubt that went after Kevin Hart about decade old tweets which they had taken totally out of context.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » . Intention is everything and no way either are out looking to offend people. Bernard Manning they are not.
antix80 wrote: Chappelle doesn't seem to believe transwomen are real women.. Isn't that a problem?
BorneTobyWilde wrote: » Then Mother Theresa was one too in that case, geez.
antix80 wrote: » Chappelle doesn't seem to believe transwomen are real women.. Isn't that a problem?
And Bernard Manning said he wasn't racist or homophobic, and what he said on stage is just an act.
So.. I know Bernard doesn't get to say "this is an f you to cancellation culture and #metoo" but in his time it was prob an FU to civilised society and by the end of his time it was prob an FU to PC culture. As in "political correctness gone mad".. Not we have political correctness gone dangerously schizophrenic and weaponised.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Hhhm... not sure what you mean. He's open to someone feeling they have been born in the wrong body, isn't that enough? He was just having fun with it and it is funny, no matter what some will say. What trans folk go through might not be but neither is the racism some black people have gone through, or a whole host of other difficult things which we as a society have no issue with being the topic of a joke. Yes, but saying something to deliberately insult someone is much different than merely having a group of people as the subject of a joke. Jo Brand's recent battery acid milkshaking 'joke' for example is a joke deliberately meant to belittle. I just didn't see (and never see) that sort of meanspirtedness in Chappelle's material. But there are lots of liberal comedians that make jokes that offend people who don't agree with their politics. They dish it out all the time themselves. How many times have liberal comics suggested American conservatives are all inbred hicks for example.
Akrasia wrote: » Mother Theresa was much worse than Michael Jackson. Much Much worse
antix80 wrote: » Stupid comment
listermint wrote: » Don't worry chapelle would have a pop at you two. So I wouldn't bother claiming him for yourself.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I love that he neither panders to the right or left and is not afraid to offend either side either. Often he will set the crowd up by pretending to have an opinion, which invariably will be met with cheers and whoops, only for him to then say something which will totally infuriate the same people.
