Current Events > Should comedians be immune from criticism?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I've seen a lot of people recently make the argument that comedians are supposed to be edgy. They're supposed to mock the powerful and tell uncomfortable truths. They're supposed to mock taboos. All well and good. But I've also seen people make the argument that because of this, it's improper to criticize a comedian for their jokes. But it's not obvious at all to me that something being a joke means that it is invalid to question the joke or the comedian.

It doesn't seem correct to me. I think the premise and target of a joke matter. Not just the subject matters. I don't think jokes about minorities, women, LGBT people, the poor, etc should be off limits. But when the joke is made at a group's expense or when the premise is that a group is bad or a certain argument is wrong, I think that's political. It's advocating a specific world's view, and I don't think the comedian or the world view should be insulated from challenge simply because it was communicated on stage or laundered through a joke.

Am I missing something here?
---

No one said you can't criticize a comedian for jokes, just that you will be criticized for taking jokes so seriously. They are jokes, they are not meant to be serious...
---

What makes you think Dave Chapelle made jokes to hate on politically lgbt people?
You sincerely believe he is anti-lgbt?

legendary_zell posted...

I've seen a lot of people recently make the argument that comedians are supposed to be edgy. They're supposed to mock the powerful and tell uncomfortable truths. They're supposed to mock taboos. All well and good. But I've also seen people make the argument that because of this, it's improper to criticize a comedian for their jokes. But it's not obvious at all to me that something being a joke means that it is invalid to question the joke or the comedian.

It doesn't seem correct to me. I think the premise and target of a joke matter. Not just the subject matters. I don't think jokes about minorities, women, LGBT people, the poor, etc should be off limits. But when the joke is made at a group's expense or when the premise is that a group is bad or a certain argument is wrong, I think that's political. It's advocating a specific world's view, and I don't think the comedian or the world view should be insulated from challenge simply because it was communicated on stage or laundered through a joke.

Am I missing something here?

It depends on what you mean by criticism. Like if somebody forces you to watch a comedy special and asks for your opinion you can talk about what you liked and didn't, but so much of the reviews and criticism seem to be attacking. Basically if your criticism amounts to anything like 'he shouldn't be allowed to say that" then yes you are very much wrong and missing something here.
---

If they're actually funny, yes.
---

They should not be and aren't. But the criticisms are open to scrutiny as well.

sevihaimerej posted...

No one said you can't criticize a comedian for jokes, just that you will be criticized for taking jokes so seriously. They are jokes, they are not meant to be serious...

A lot of speech should be taken way less seriously.
---

I think they shouldn't be held to a higher standard than the President.
---

No they are not. Who are saying they are?

---

because the statements they make on stage aren't intended to be taken seriously, and so you shouldn't treat them as such

it's like the people who get outraged at Onion article headlines.

sevihaimerej posted...

No one said you can't criticize a comedian for jokes, just that you will be criticized for taking jokes so seriously. They are jokes, they are not meant to be serious...

That's fine, but just because a joke is genuinely and primarily meant to be funny doesn't mean it's devoid of serious thought. Most comedians who are commenting on social issues are coming from an identifiable perspective and that perspective is advanced through their jokes.

For example, when Seinfeld jokes about PC Culture on colleges campuses, he is joking, but he is also clearly attacking his perception of PC culture on college campuses.

Of course people are allowed to criticize the criticizers though, anyone can be dumb or take things too far or misinterpret things.
---

FrozenXylophone posted...

What makes you think Dave Chapelle made jokes to hate on politically lgbt people?
You sincerely believe he is anti-lgbt?

While this topic was inspired by the Chapelle discussions, it's not specifically about him. I've been seeing this argument for years now.

I don't know what his sincerely heartfelt beliefs on LGBT issues are. I'd bet that he's above average on them compared to the general population. But my understanding is that the premise of the jokes is that LGBT people have gone off the deep end with all the orientations and are too protected/sensitive to criticism. That's what I mean when I say premises can be political and should be up for debate.
---

joe40001 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

I've seen a lot of people recently make the argument that comedians are supposed to be edgy. They're supposed to mock the powerful and tell uncomfortable truths. They're supposed to mock taboos. All well and good. But I've also seen people make the argument that because of this, it's improper to criticize a comedian for their jokes. But it's not obvious at all to me that something being a joke means that it is invalid to question the joke or the comedian.

It doesn't seem correct to me. I think the premise and target of a joke matter. Not just the subject matters. I don't think jokes about minorities, women, LGBT people, the poor, etc should be off limits. But when the joke is made at a group's expense or when the premise is that a group is bad or a certain argument is wrong, I think that's political. It's advocating a specific world's view, and I don't think the comedian or the world view should be insulated from challenge simply because it was communicated on stage or laundered through a joke.

Am I missing something here?

It depends on what you mean by criticism. Like if somebody forces you to watch a comedy special and asks for your opinion you can talk about what you liked and didn't, but so much of the reviews and criticism seem to be attacking. Basically if your criticism amounts to anything like 'he shouldn't be allowed to say that" then yes you are very much wrong and missing something here.

I don't think I've seen anyone say a comedian shouldn't be allowed to say something. I've seen people say they shouldn't have said something or that it's harmful that they said it. If someone is promoting harmful ideas on stage, people should say something. I don't support censoring comedians in any way, but social disapproval certainly shouldn't be unexpected.
---

legendary_zell posted...

joe40001 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

I've seen a lot of people recently make the argument that comedians are supposed to be edgy. They're supposed to mock the powerful and tell uncomfortable truths. They're supposed to mock taboos. All well and good. But I've also seen people make the argument that because of this, it's improper to criticize a comedian for their jokes. But it's not obvious at all to me that something being a joke means that it is invalid to question the joke or the comedian.

It doesn't seem correct to me. I think the premise and target of a joke matter. Not just the subject matters. I don't think jokes about minorities, women, LGBT people, the poor, etc should be off limits. But when the joke is made at a group's expense or when the premise is that a group is bad or a certain argument is wrong, I think that's political. It's advocating a specific world's view, and I don't think the comedian or the world view should be insulated from challenge simply because it was communicated on stage or laundered through a joke.

Am I missing something here?

It depends on what you mean by criticism. Like if somebody forces you to watch a comedy special and asks for your opinion you can talk about what you liked and didn't, but so much of the reviews and criticism seem to be attacking. Basically if your criticism amounts to anything like 'he shouldn't be allowed to say that" then yes you are very much wrong and missing something here.

I don't think I've seen anyone say a comedian shouldn't be allowed to say something. I've seen people say they shouldn't have said something or that it's harmful that they said it. If someone is promoting harmful ideas on stage, people should say something. I don't support censoring comedians in any way, but social disapproval certainly shouldn't be unexpected.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say "they shouldn't say that" if you don't mean "they shouldn't be allowed to say that". How can you tell somebody what they should and shouldn't say without telling them what they should and shouldn't say?

I think the issue with cancel culture is that it is hostile and punitive towards people, it goes beyond personal disapproval and into active attempts to diminish.

If you disapprove that's fine, if you disapprove so much that you want this person fired, exiled, or turned into a pariah that's not fine.
---

I'm about to go to lunch so I'll respond in a bit.
---

legendary_zell posted...

FrozenXylophone posted...

What makes you think Dave Chapelle made jokes to hate on politically lgbt people?
You sincerely believe he is anti-lgbt?

While this topic was inspired by the Chapelle discussions, it's not specifically about him. I've been seeing this argument for years now.

I don't know what his sincerely heartfelt beliefs on LGBT issues are. I'd bet that he's above average on them compared to the general population. But my understanding is that the premise of the jokes is that LGBT people have gone off the deep end with all the orientations and are too protected/sensitive to criticism. That's what I mean when I say premises can be political and should be up for debate.

The difference between a joke and a political statement is the person delivering the joke is exaggerating and not speaking reality. A person delivering a politcal statement is convicted and believes inherently that it is not exaggerated.

Ex:
Rodney Dangerfield joke:
My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met.

Haha

Now is he serious? He and his wife hate each other ? No.
He is poking fun at the idea that marriages are often like this. But that doesn't mean he buys into it.

To criticize Dave in regards to his jokes as being dangerous political statements, you are suggesting he is not hyperbolic, not doing it in good fun. He is malicious and harbors the idea himself.

Otherwise, what is the issue? If Dave loves lgbt people and is just being hyperbolic and exaggerated, what is the issue?

An example of an old Dave jokes:
https://genius.com/amp/Dave-chappelle-killin-them-softly-annotated

Says every black guy has white friend.
His white friend races the cops while drunk.
Tells cop he didn't know he couldn't do that.
Cop is like, now you know, have a good night.

Is this exaggerated? Does he really think white guys can do this? Is chip a real person? Was this something that actually happened or did he make it up for a laugh?

This is how comedy works.

legendary_zell posted...

For example, when Seinfeld jokes about PC Culture on colleges campuses, he is joking, but he is also clearly attacking his perception of PC culture on college campuses.

Has he actually joked about it?
His comments on PC culture where from an interview not stand up.

There's a trend of people being overly critical of jokes, who don't seem to understand the most basic mechanics of comedy. There's also a movement towards zero-tolerance for improvisational, exploratory thought. No, comedians shouldn't be immune from criticism... but more often than not, that criticism comes from a place of deep cynicism and I can't get on board with that.
---

They should have immunity from cancellation for offensive jokes but not immunity from criticism.
---

Good posts from tc in here

Another example of a joke Dave made that coule be considered anti-feminist IF you don't realize it is all exaggerated hyperbole:

But that's still not where chivalry got killed. Chivalry got killed by the feminist movement on all them magazines that got women going crazy, because women got too much advice about men from other women. And they don't know what the fuck hey're talking about.

And it's true. I see the shit in the magazines. I don't read 'em, but I be seeing the cover. I look at-- you ever be in the grocery store, fellas, you look at one of them magazines like, "What is this?" And it say on the cover:
"A hundred ways to please your man" by... some lady.
Get outta here, man. come on.
Ain't no hundred ways. That list is four things long.
Just suck his <>, play with his <> then fix him a sandwich and don't talk so much, and they're gon' be happy.

And then the magazines trick the women. The magazines start picking at your self-esteem. Every page you turn, you start feeling fatter, and uglier, and you feel like your clothes aren't good enough.
And the magazines have you forgetting how fucking beautiful you are.
And that's what happens. Now look what happens.
And then you forget how beautiful you are, and we all suffer.
If pussy was a stock, it would be plummeting right now because you've flooded the market with it. You're giving it away too easy.
I'm just... being truthful.
I'm just talking.
It would plummet!
We'd be watching the news.
"Today, pussy plummeted again on the NASDAQ.
Gold is up ten points."

You got to ask, does he really think feminism killed chivalry through advice magazines?
Lol

joe40001 posted...

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say "they shouldn't say that" if you don't mean "they shouldn't be allowed to say that". How can you tell somebody what they should and shouldn't say without telling them what they should and shouldn't say?

"He shouldn't say that" is expressing an opinion on speech. "He shouldn't be allowed to say that" is expressing a desire that speech be policed. Critics will argue about why joking about certain topics is problematic and harmful, but I've yet to see many critics argue that jokes should be forbidden. That's Trump territory.

There's always this defensive overreaction to critique. The very nature of critique is to analyze things in a critical light. It's not about wanting to ban speech, it's about viewing speech through a critical lens.
---

scar the 1 posted...

joe40001 posted...

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say "they shouldn't say that" if you don't mean "they shouldn't be allowed to say that". How can you tell somebody what they should and shouldn't say without telling them what they should and shouldn't say?

"He shouldn't say that" is expressing an opinion on speech. "He shouldn't be allowed to say that" is expressing a desire that speech be policed. Critics will argue about why joking about certain topics is problematic and harmful, but I've yet to see many critics argue that jokes should be forbidden. That's Trump territory.

There's always this defensive overreaction to critique. The very nature of critique is to analyze things in a critical light. It's not about wanting to ban speech, it's about viewing speech through a critical lens.

As long as people acknowledge that it's all like opinion and not objectively something that "shouldn't be said" then yeah whatever that's fine.

I don't think there's a defensive over-reaction. I think people are just vigilant these days because some of the people who are 'just being critical' have a habit of sounding a lot like the people who want somebody canceled.
---

But this isn't a new phenomenon. There's always been this backlash against critique from the conservative side.
"Well now all of a sudden I'm not allowed to say such and such anymore"

It's very clearly playing the victim to deflect against critique.
---

sevihaimerej posted...

No one said you can't criticize a comedian for jokes, just that you will be criticized for taking jokes so seriously. They are jokes, they are not meant to be serious...

---

LightHawKnight posted...

sevihaimerej posted...

No one said you can't criticize a comedian for jokes, just that you will be criticized for taking jokes so seriously. They are jokes, they are not meant to be serious...

I'm fairly certain that the criticism isn't coming from people who thought he wasn't joking, rather that it's people thinking joking about such things isn't funny
---

No but GameFAQs users seem to think they are.
---

You're welcome to criticize a joke if it's not funny, but you're not really entitled to criticize it because you feel the topic should be off-limits from joking at all.

---

FrozenXylophone posted...

legendary_zell posted...

FrozenXylophone posted...

What makes you think Dave Chapelle made jokes to hate on politically lgbt people?
You sincerely believe he is anti-lgbt?

While this topic was inspired by the Chapelle discussions, it's not specifically about him. I've been seeing this argument for years now.

I don't know what his sincerely heartfelt beliefs on LGBT issues are. I'd bet that he's above average on them compared to the general population. But my understanding is that the premise of the jokes is that LGBT people have gone off the deep end with all the orientations and are too protected/sensitive to criticism. That's what I mean when I say premises can be political and should be up for debate.

The difference between a joke and a political statement is the person delivering the joke is exaggerating and not speaking reality. A person delivering a politcal statement is convicted and believes inherently that it is not exaggerated.

Ex:
Rodney Dangerfield joke:
My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met.

Haha

Now is he serious? He and his wife hate each other ? No.
He is poking fun at the idea that marriages are often like this. But that doesn't mean he buys into it.

To criticize Dave in regards to his jokes as being dangerous political statements, you are suggesting he is not hyperbolic, not doing it in good fun. He is malicious and harbors the idea himself.

Otherwise, what is the issue? If Dave loves lgbt people and is just being hyperbolic and exaggerated, what is the issue?

An example of an old Dave jokes:
https://genius.com/amp/Dave-chappelle-killin-them-softly-annotated

Says every black guy has white friend.
His white friend races the cops while drunk.
Tells cop he didn't know he couldn't do that.
Cop is like, now you know, have a good night.

Is this exaggerated? Does he really think white guys can do this? Is chip a real person? Was this something that actually happened or did he make it up for a laugh?

This is how comedy works.

It seems like you agree that it wouldn't have been okay if their points had been anti women or racist. That's the core of my argument. Someone shouldn't be able to dress up racist ideas with presumed laughter and ride off into the sunset unchallenged.

And that second one is a great example of why I don't consider any subjects out of bounds. The subject is a controversial one, but the premise is the existence and ridiculousness of anti black cop sentiment and white privilege, not that cops are actually right to racially profile or ignore other people's crimes.

The first one is just old school anti wife comedy that's slightly misogynistic, but mostly formulaic. I think it's done mostly on the understanding that comic just told those types of joke back then and on the understanding that they actually love each other.

For Chapelle, I don't know if there's that underlying assumption or that turning against an unnamed and powerful bias. The joke appears to be that the LGBT community and their defenders are the group that needs to be taken down a peg.
---

joe40001 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

joe40001 posted...

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say "they shouldn't say that" if you don't mean "they shouldn't be allowed to say that". How can you tell somebody what they should and shouldn't say without telling them what they should and shouldn't say?

"He shouldn't say that" is expressing an opinion on speech. "He shouldn't be allowed to say that" is expressing a desire that speech be policed. Critics will argue about why joking about certain topics is problematic and harmful, but I've yet to see many critics argue that jokes should be forbidden. That's Trump territory.

There's always this defensive overreaction to critique. The very nature of critique is to analyze things in a critical light. It's not about wanting to ban speech, it's about viewing speech through a critical lens.

As long as people acknowledge that it's all like opinion and not objectively something that "shouldn't be said" then yeah whatever that's fine.

I don't think there's a defensive over-reaction. I think people are just vigilant these days because some of the people who are 'just being critical' have a habit of sounding a lot like the people who want somebody canceled.

Scar essentially said what I would have said. But on the point of canceling, I think it's fine to not want to go to someone's shows, to publicize what they said, and to ask people not to lend support by associating with them. I believe that's full free association and free speech. I don't support any type of hate speech law or censorship though. You may still call that canceling, but I call it the marketplace of ideas.

If someone demonstrates true understanding of why they were wrong, and genuinely changes, then they can be welcomed back. I don't believe in eternal guilt even for people who say heinous things. It must very very rare that a true change takes place. 99 percent of the time we get "you're too sensitive" or "that was a long time ago" or "I already gave my non-specific, passive aggressive apology"
---

No, no one in the world is immune to criticism. That's part of life.

You also don't need to regard every single opinion, regardless of the platform or "legitimacy" of the author as the epitome of truth. Especially when it comes to something as subjective as entertainment. And especially in an era with a million fucking websites that employ people with the entire idea to write stuff to get clicks for ad revenue and create a reaction.

Everyone needs to stop giving a shit if people disagree with them and just move the fuck on
---

The Admiral posted...

You're welcome to criticize a joke if it's not funny, but you're not really entitled to criticize it because you feel the topic should be off-limits from joking at all.

I've already explained that topics shouldn't be off limits. But you have to do some topics specific ways. You can joke about race, but your punchline shouldn't be that the Nazis didn't go far enough. You can joke about rape, but your premise shouldn't be that marital rape doesn't really exist. Etc.

A comedian can go ahead and make those jokes if they want, and I'd fight in court to keep them from being prosecuted for them, but they shouldn't be surprised or defended when they are disinvited from reputable spaces and ratio'd to death online.
---

The Admiral posted...

You're welcome to criticize a joke if it's not funny, but you're not really entitled to criticize it because you feel the topic should be off-limits from joking at all.

You're absolutely entitled to criticize it if you feel it's off-limits, it's just that others DON'T have to take your criticism seriously and you don't HAVE to respect those who are making said criticisms. And likewise, just because you disagree with something as subjective as entertainment you don't need to spend hours crying about "LOL LOOK AT HOW TRIGGERED AND WRONG THIS PERSON IS! HOW DARE THEY SAY SOMETHING SO STUPID! I'M TOTALLY NOT MAD GUYS!". Just call the person an idiot and move the fuck on.
---

legendary_zell posted...

joe40001 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

joe40001 posted...

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say "they shouldn't say that" if you don't mean "they shouldn't be allowed to say that". How can you tell somebody what they should and shouldn't say without telling them what they should and shouldn't say?

"He shouldn't say that" is expressing an opinion on speech. "He shouldn't be allowed to say that" is expressing a desire that speech be policed. Critics will argue about why joking about certain topics is problematic and harmful, but I've yet to see many critics argue that jokes should be forbidden. That's Trump territory.

There's always this defensive overreaction to critique. The very nature of critique is to analyze things in a critical light. It's not about wanting to ban speech, it's about viewing speech through a critical lens.

As long as people acknowledge that it's all like opinion and not objectively something that "shouldn't be said" then yeah whatever that's fine.

I don't think there's a defensive over-reaction. I think people are just vigilant these days because some of the people who are 'just being critical' have a habit of sounding a lot like the people who want somebody canceled.

Scar essentially said what I would have said. But on the point of canceling, I think it's fine to not want to go to someone's shows, to publicize what they said, and to ask people not to lend support by associating with them. I believe that's full free association and free speech. I don't support any type of hate speech law or censorship though. You may still call that canceling, but I call it the marketplace of ideas.

Let's be fair, it's not "asking people not to lend support" that's very clearly softening up the reality. It's almost always stated in the form that is basically a demand, and it's not a demand that "people not lend support" it's a demand that "X gets taken off the air" or whatever.

The issue is not when one person has an opinion, it's when one person has an opinion and doesn't care if others disagree. "People shouldn't be able to pay to see Louis CK because of how I feel, I'm going to make a mob and try to pressure venues to not host him"

That's a person going beyond speaking for themselves and trying to dictate to others, that's not a marketplace of ideas that's people bullying due to outrage.

Actual marketplace of ideas is fine, but that means no "asking people not to lend support" so long as that is a euphemism for "demanding a person is deplatformed"
---

legendary_zell posted...

It seems like you agree that it wouldn't have been okay if their points had been anti women or racist. That's the core of my argument. Someone shouldn't be able to dress up racist ideas with presumed laughter and ride off into the sunset unchallenged.

I agree. But then the point becomes that criticism again Dave is necessary because he was outright anti-trans.

What part of his bit do you believe suggested that?

FrozenXylophone posted...

legendary_zell posted...

It seems like you agree that it wouldn't have been okay if their points had been anti women or racist. That's the core of my argument. Someone shouldn't be able to dress up racist ideas with presumed laughter and ride off into the sunset unchallenged.

I agree. But then the point becomes that criticism again Dave is necessary because he was outright anti-trans.

What part of his bit do you believe suggested that?

The idea that there's too many acronyms and that Trans people are too protected by society/they are too sensitive and can be made fun of.
---

joe40001 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

joe40001 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

joe40001 posted...

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say "they shouldn't say that" if you don't mean "they shouldn't be allowed to say that". How can you tell somebody what they should and shouldn't say without telling them what they should and shouldn't say?

"He shouldn't say that" is expressing an opinion on speech. "He shouldn't be allowed to say that" is expressing a desire that speech be policed. Critics will argue about why joking about certain topics is problematic and harmful, but I've yet to see many critics argue that jokes should be forbidden. That's Trump territory.

There's always this defensive overreaction to critique. The very nature of critique is to analyze things in a critical light. It's not about wanting to ban speech, it's about viewing speech through a critical lens.

As long as people acknowledge that it's all like opinion and not objectively something that "shouldn't be said" then yeah whatever that's fine.

I don't think there's a defensive over-reaction. I think people are just vigilant these days because some of the people who are 'just being critical' have a habit of sounding a lot like the people who want somebody canceled.

Scar essentially said what I would have said. But on the point of canceling, I think it's fine to not want to go to someone's shows, to publicize what they said, and to ask people not to lend support by associating with them. I believe that's full free association and free speech. I don't support any type of hate speech law or censorship though. You may still call that canceling, but I call it the marketplace of ideas.

Let's be fair, it's not "asking people not to lend support" that's very clearly softening up the reality. It's almost always stated in the form that is basically a demand, and it's not a demand that "people not lend support" it's a demand that "X gets taken off the air" or whatever.

The issue is not when one person has an opinion, it's when one person has an opinion and doesn't care if others disagree. "People shouldn't be able to pay to see Louis CK because of how I feel, I'm going to make a mob and try to pressure venues to not host him"

That's a person going beyond speaking for themselves and trying to dictate to others, that's not a marketplace of ideas that's people bullying due to outrage.

Actual marketplace of ideas is fine, but that means no "asking people not to lend support" so long as that is a euphemism for "demanding a person is deplatformed"

I wouldn't do that myself because thats not how I operated. But if someone truly goes off the deep end with their actions or jokes, it's fine to ask others to agree that what they said/did was out of bounds. That's certainly part of the marketplace in my view even if you call it canceling, deplatforming etc. Not every viewpoint is entitled to or worthy of a platform because that's something we decide as a community.

If I owned a comedy club, I wouldn't invite Crowder to come joke about how feminism has gone too far. Others can do that if they want to. People can try to convince me not to invite him. What's the problem?
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

The Admiral posted...

You're welcome to criticize a joke if it's not funny, but you're not really entitled to criticize it because you feel the topic should be off-limits from joking at all.

You're absolutely entitled to criticize it if you feel it's off-limits, it's just that others DON'T have to take your criticism seriously and you don't HAVE to respect those who are making said criticisms. And likewise, just because you disagree with something as subjective as entertainment you don't need to spend hours crying about "LOL LOOK AT HOW TRIGGERED AND WRONG THIS PERSON IS! HOW DARE THEY SAY SOMETHING SO STUPID! I'M TOTALLY NOT MAD GUYS!". Just call the person an idiot and move the fuck on.

I don't think this is quite right. I think society has done itself a great disservice by having this idea as the dominant one. Some ideas deserve to be challenged and when you leave a cool, edgy space for """"jokes"""" containing cultural and political messages to go unchecked, you get a culture where people latch onto the jokes, believe they're full of hidden truth, and then believe the premise.

See the entire right wing part of the internet with their "edgy" memes that you're a SJW for noticing that the jokes always seems to come at the expense of minorities, women, gays, Muslim, and Jews. Those "jokes" should have been called out for their radicalizing, bigoted nature from the beginning instead of shielded by "just a joke"
.
---

legendary_zell posted...

The idea that there's too many acronyms and that Trans people are too protected by society/they are too sensitive and can be made fun of.

I figured it would be the Chinese part.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/08/27/dave-chapelle-makes-fun-transgender-people-netflix-special/

What I didnt realise at the time was that I was breaking an unwritten and unspoken rule of show business, Chappelle said.

No matter what you do in your artistic expression, you are never, ever, allowed to upset the alphabet people. You know who I mean. Those people who took 20% of the alphabet for themselves. Im talking about them Ls and Bs and Gs and the Ts.

I feel bad for the Ts, he adds. But theyre so confusing the fact is if a person can be born in the wrong body, they have to admit thats a fucking hilarious predicament.

This part?

FrozenXylophone posted...

legendary_zell posted...

The idea that there's too many acronyms and that Trans people are too protected by society/they are too sensitive and can be made fun of.

I figured it would be the Chinese part.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/08/27/dave-chapelle-makes-fun-transgender-people-netflix-special/

What I didnt realise at the time was that I was breaking an unwritten and unspoken rule of show business, Chappelle said.

No matter what you do in your artistic expression, you are never, ever, allowed to upset the alphabet people. You know who I mean. Those people who took 20% of the alphabet for themselves. Im talking about them Ls and Bs and Gs and the Ts.

I feel bad for the Ts, he adds. But theyre so confusing the fact is if a person can be born in the wrong body, they have to admit thats a fucking hilarious predicament.

This part?

Yeah, I'm not sure what the points of those jokes were other than legit pointing out his perception that you can't attack LGBT people in comedy and pointing out that gender dysphoria is weird and leads to complications in society. I've seen the same stuff said here by conservatives and it doesn't appear that they are the punchline.

What is the joke here?
---

legendary_zell posted...

FrozenXylophone posted...

legendary_zell posted...

The idea that there's too many acronyms and that Trans people are too protected by society/they are too sensitive and can be made fun of.

I figured it would be the Chinese part.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/08/27/dave-chapelle-makes-fun-transgender-people-netflix-special/

What I didnt realise at the time was that I was breaking an unwritten and unspoken rule of show business, Chappelle said.

No matter what you do in your artistic expression, you are never, ever, allowed to upset the alphabet people. You know who I mean. Those people who took 20% of the alphabet for themselves. Im talking about them Ls and Bs and Gs and the Ts.

I feel bad for the Ts, he adds. But theyre so confusing the fact is if a person can be born in the wrong body, they have to admit thats a fucking hilarious predicament.

This part?

Yeah, I'm not sure what the points of those jokes were other than legit pointing out his perception that you can't attack LGBT people in comedy and pointing out that gender dysphoria is weird and leads to complications in society. I've seen the same stuff said here by conservatives and it doesn't appear that they are the punchline.

What is the joke here?

The bit at the end about it being a fucking hilarious predicament is kinda funny and has potential to be expanded on. It could even be a more humane acknowledgement of issues there.

But yeah you're not wrong on the rest. Again, I think he can do better than lean so heavily in that direction.

Malfunction posted...

legendary_zell posted...

FrozenXylophone posted...

legendary_zell posted...

The idea that there's too many acronyms and that Trans people are too protected by society/they are too sensitive and can be made fun of.

I figured it would be the Chinese part.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/08/27/dave-chapelle-makes-fun-transgender-people-netflix-special/

What I didnt realise at the time was that I was breaking an unwritten and unspoken rule of show business, Chappelle said.

No matter what you do in your artistic expression, you are never, ever, allowed to upset the alphabet people. You know who I mean. Those people who took 20% of the alphabet for themselves. Im talking about them Ls and Bs and Gs and the Ts.

I feel bad for the Ts, he adds. But theyre so confusing the fact is if a person can be born in the wrong body, they have to admit thats a fucking hilarious predicament.

This part?

Yeah, I'm not sure what the points of those jokes were other than legit pointing out his perception that you can't attack LGBT people in comedy and pointing out that gender dysphoria is weird and leads to complications in society. I've seen the same stuff said here by conservatives and it doesn't appear that they are the punchline.

What is the joke here?

The bit at the end about it being a fucking hilarious predicament is kinda funny and has potential to be expanded on. It could even be a more humane acknowledgement of issues there.

But yeah you're not wrong on the rest. Again, I think he can do better than lean so heavily in that direction.

Exactly. He could have used it to humanize people in a less scoldy way than activists do. He could make your truly empathize with how disorienting being transgender is. Instead, he did a tired transpeople in sports joke. That joke gets made every single day on this boarding and was old years ago.
---

joe40001 posted...

Let's be fair, it's not "asking people not to lend support" that's very clearly softening up the reality. It's almost always stated in the form that is basically a demand, and it's not a demand that "people not lend support" it's a demand that "X gets taken off the air" or whatever.

I've never seen a critic who demands someone gets taken off the air.
---

It depends on whether or not the accuser understands comedy.

I think that silence should be preferred over stupid, ignorant, malicious criticism. This applies to all things.
---